Right to Bail

penalty less than death is imposed.In its assailed decision, respondent IAC concurred with the trial court that the charges against accused are capital A. Bail, defined offenses and that evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. However, the respondent Court ruled that while the evidence clearly established that the Section 1, Rule 114, Rules of Court petitioner 2 "was responsible for the shooting of Atty. Maramba, Lt. Rumbaoa and Patrolman Sagun and he Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to so admitted responsibility for their death in his confession" the crime is ostensibly that of homicide guarantee his appearance before any court as required merely, not murder. The criterion to determine under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be whether the offense charged is capital is the penalty given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, provided by the law regardless of the attendant cash deposit, or recognizance. circumstances. As pointed out by the petitioner in its memorandum, the rationale of the provision lies in the difficulty and impracticability of determining the nature B. When matter of Right; of the offense on the basis of the penalty actually When matter of Discretion imposable. Otherwise, the test will require consideration not only of evidence showing People v. IAC, 147 SCRA 219 commission of the crime but also evidence of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Thus, there has to be not only a complete trial but the trial [G.R. Nos. L-66939-41. January 10, 1987.] court must also already render a decision in the case. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. This defeats the purpose of bail, which is to entitle the THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and accused to provisional liberty pending trial."cralaw virtua1aw library Section 13 ANGELITO ALIVIA Y ABALOS, Respondents. SYLLABUS 1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; BAIL; CRITERION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OFFENSE CHARGED IS CAPITAL. — An offense is capital, if it may be punished by death under both the law prevailing at the time of its commission and that prevailing at the time of the application for bail, even if after conviction a 2. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; TREACHERY; ATTACK WAS SUDDEN AND UNEXPECTED; CASE AT BAR. — The commission of the crimes charged was attended by treachery as established by the testimony of the eyewitness Virgilio Yanuaria to the shooting of Atty. Maramba and by strong evidence as to the treacherous shooting of the two peace officers. Virgilio Yanuaria testified that accused suddenly and without warning shot the deceased Atty. Norberto Maramba when the latter turned his back towards the accused and returned to his table to eat. Atty. Maramba was fatally hit on the back of his head and fell to the cement floor. Atty. Maramba did not sense any danger that he would be shot by the accused considering that he and the accused knew each other personally and that, as respondent admitted, there was no previous grudge or misunderstanding between him (accused) and Atty. Maramba. Successive shots hit the two peace officers who were caught by surprise as a result of which they died. The deceased had no inkling that the accused was armed and that he would be carried by passion to resort to violence considering his prominent stature in the locality. DECISION PARAS, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of respondent Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), now Court of Appeals (CA), in AC-G.R. No. SP-01320-22 promulgated January 24, 1984, granting the petition for bail of accused Angelito Alivia y Abalos and nullifying the Orders of the trial court, dated February 23, 1983 and May 13, 1983 in Criminal Cases Nos. 1272-74, entitled People of the Philippines v. Angelito Alivia y Abalos. Said orders of the trial court denied accused’s application for bail holding that the accused Angelito Alivia is charged with three (3) capital offenses, the evidence of guilt of which, in each case, is strong. Accused Angelito Alivia y Abalos was charged before the then CFI of Isabela with the crimes of (1) assault upon an agent of person in authority with murder with the use of illegally possessed firearm, with respect to the killing of Lt. Cesar Rumbaoa (Crim. Case No. 1272), (2) assault upon an agent of person in authority with murder with use of illegally possessed firearm (Crim. Case No. 1274) and (3) murder of Atty. Norberto Maramba with the use of illegally possessed firearm, (Crim. Case No. 1273). The trial court ordered the consolidation of the three (3) criminal cases since they arose from the same incident. The Provincial Fiscal recommended no bail for the accused in the three aforementioned cases. Accused filed an omnibus motion praying among other things that he be allowed bail contending that the evidence of his guilt is not strong, but said motion was denied by the trial court. Upon denial of his Motion for Reconsideration, Accused filed with the IAC a petition for certiorari questioning the decision of the trial court on his motion for bail. After considering the records of the criminal cases which were transmitted to it from the trial court, the IAC promulgated a decision granting petitioner bail and nullifying the Orders of the trial court dated February 23, 1983 and May 13, 1983 and fixing the amount of bail at Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00). After denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the present petition was filed. The facts as found by the trial court, which facts were adopted by respondent IAC, 1 are as follows:chanrobles law library : red "At the recently concluded barangay elections for barangay Sarangay, Cabatuan, Isabela, two candidates ran for the position of Barangay Captain thereat, namely accused Angelito Alivia and one Antonio Bagauisan. Herein accused lost in that election, but he filed with the Municipal Circuit Court of Cabatuan, an election protest. Antonio Bagauisan was duly proclaimed and he assumed office accordingly. The late former Municipal Judge of Cabatuan, Atty. Norberto Maramba (Criminal Case No. 1273) was counsel for the protestee. (tsn., chaser (pullutan). Accused Angelito Alivia told Pat. del pp. 27-28, November 16, 1982). Rosario to drop by his house and get ammunition for pistol Cal .38 and Pat. Elpidio Sagun for the armalite "The hearing of the election protest was set in the magazine. (tsn., pp. 88-93, November 17, 1982). morning of June 4, 1982, but was postponed. After which, at about 10:00 o’clock that same morning, the "The relative positions and sitting arrangements of the late Atty. Maramba invited witness Virgilio Yanuaria, two groups as found in the ocular inspection conducted the late Police Lt. Cesar Rumbaoa (Criminal Case in the morning of November 17, 1982, at the Azarcon No. 1272), Antonio Bagauisan and others to play Restaurant, Cabatuan are the following (pp. 130-131, bowling/billiards at the Cabatuan Recreation Center. record, Crim. Case No. 1272) They played up to 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day with the bet that the loser will pay the beer "The group of accused Angelito Alivia was the first to they will order. (tsn., pp. 28-29, ibid) arrive at the Azarcon Restaurant, and this group joined two small square tables, identified as square tables "Later, the late Atty. Maramba, Police Lt. Rumbaoa Nos. 5, and 6, to form a rectangle. There are eight (8) and witness Virgilio Yanuaria (Antonio Bagauisan did of them, namely: (1) accused Angelito Alivia, who not join them) proceeded to the Azarcon Restaurant seated himself on a stool marked (AA) north of square at the public market, Cabatuan, Isabela, for lunch. table No. 5; (2) Pat. Danilo Rosario, was seated on a They occupied round table No. 2 (see sketch). The stool marked (DR) left of accused Alivia, who was late Police Lt. Rumbaoa was seated on chair No. A, facing south, square table No. 5; (3) a man, unknown, facing west, the late Atty. Maramba, on chair No. B, occupied a stool marked (UK); (4) further left, by facing south and witness Virgilio Yanuaria in chair No. Feliciano Gaspar, occupied a stool marked (EG); (5) C, facing east. They ordered lunch and three (3) exactly opposite the accused, was seated Municipal bottles of beer, but Atty. Maramba did not drink, Judge Estanislao Cudal marked (EC) on square table because he joined the group of accused Angelito No. 6; (6) on his left, was seated the late Pat. Elpidio Alivia. (tsn., pp. 20, 29-34, ibid). Sagun, on a stool marked (ES) in square table No. 6; (7) left of Elpidio Sagun, was seated, Engr. Charlie "It appears that the group of the accused Angelito Martin, marked (CM) on table No. 6, and (8) on his left, Alivia arrived at the Azarcon Restaurant much earlier, was the woman, unknown, on square table No. 5, (tsn., and the members of the group are (1) Angelito Alivia, pp. 24-29, November 17, 1982). Accused herein; (2) Municipal Judge Estanislao Cudal; (3) Feliciano Gaspar; (4) Pat. Elpidio Sagun; "The three member group of the late Atty. Maramba, (5) Pat. Danilo Rosario; (6) Engr. Charlie Martin; (7-8) who arrived later, occupied round table No. 2, namely: a newly married couple, not identified. The late (1) the late Police Lt. Cesar Rumbaoa, facing west, Patrolman Elpidio Sagun and witness Pat. Danilo del occupied chair A; (2) the late Atty. Maramba, facing Rosario also went to the Azarcon Restaurant to buy south, occupied chair B; and (3) witness Virgilio pansit noodles, but were invited by the accused to Yanuaria, facing east, occupied chair C. (tsn, pp. 22join them in their group while drinking beer with 23, November 17, 1982). Maramba being ready, the late Police Lt. Cesar Rumbaoa called for Atty. Maramba to join them and eat ("kakain na tayo"). Hence, the late Atty. Maramba stood up from where he was then seated with the group of accused Angelito Alivia. However, he was not able to reach round table No. 2 to eat, because he was suddenly shot on the chest (Dr. Angobung) by accused Angelito Alivia using a firearm identified as Llama Automatic Pistol Super 38, SN-532937 (Exh. "K") causing him to fall to the cemented floor. (tsn., "Upon arrival at the Azarcon restaurant, the late Atty. pp. 32-34, November 17, 1982). Maramba, engaged Municipal Judge Estanislao Cudal in a conversation on topics, among which was about the "While in that lying position, again he was shot on the barangay election. Thereafter, Judge Cudal and neck. Both gunshot wounds caused his instantaneous Feliciano Gaspar left and proceeded to the municipal death. Before the second gun report when Virgilio building. When Judge Cudal and Gaspar left, the late Yanuario was about to run, the late Patrolman Elpidio Atty. Maramba seated himself on the stool formerly Sagun who was on his left pushed Virgilio Yanuaria to occupied by Judge Cudal and engaged the accused save him, using his right hand pressing the left Angelito Alivia who was seated opposite north of square shoulder of Yanuaria. After which, Yanuaria walked table No. 5, at a distance of 189 centimeters facing crouching passing thru the inside door (No. 3) and each other, in a conversation on matters the witness went out thru door No. 2, and proceeded to the can not remember. (tsn. pp. 30-31, November 17, 1982; municipal building to report the incident, after hearing tsn., pp. 94-97, November 17, 1982). successive gun reports, the number he cannot remember. (tsn., pp. 20-22, 34-35, November 17, "Meanwhile, Pat. del Rosario noticed accused Angelito 1982). Alivia go out from the Azarcon Restaurant thru the main door (No. 1 towards the west of the restaurant, where "Witness Virgilio Yanuaria reported the incident to his car was parked three (3) meters from the main door, Cpl. Jose Pascual in the presence of Pat. Danilo del east (west) side of the restaurant. (tsn., pp. 98-100, Rosario saying "Lito Alivia shot Atty. Maramba." November 17, 1982). Immediately, four policemen, namely, Pat. Danilo del Rosario, Pat. Jose Pascual, Pat. Jose Angangan and "Later, Angelito Alivia returned to his former place. In a another one, went to the crime scene. They were later little while, Patrolman Danilo del Rosario stood up and followed by Pat. Celestino Apaya and Pat. Ricardo went to the municipal building while the late Patrolman Pedro. Thereat, they saw the body of the late Police Elpidio Sagun remained inside the restaurant. (tsn., pp. Lt. Rumbaoa (dead already) at the main door (door 103-104, November l7, 1982). No. 1) lying face upward, and inside they saw the body of the late Atty. Maramba (dead already) face "The lunch ordered by the group of the late Atty. downward and that of the late Pat. Sagun (still The distance from chair B, occupied by the late Atty. Maramba, in round table No. 2, to the tip of square table No. 6, where Judge Cudal was seated is 90 centimeters, and the distance from the seat of accused Angelito Alivia, north of square table No. 5, to the stool of Judge Cudal, which was later occupied by the late Atty. Maramba is around 189 centimeters. (tsn., pp. 1921, ibid). breathing) face upward (tsn., pp. 45-49, November 17, 1982). "Meanwhile, Dr. Benedicto Acosta, the incumbent Municipal Mayor of Cabatuan, arrived from Ilagan, at about 3:10, afternoon of June 4, 1982. In front of his business residence at Centro, Cabatuan, he was informed by Dr. Rolando Dacuycuy, a brother-in-law of the accused, about the shooting incident. Because he was then riding on his car, he invited him to see the incident, but Dr. Dacuycuy did not get inside the restaurant, while Mayor Acosta went inside to investigate the matter, in his capacity as Chief Executive of the town. (tsn., pp. 237-238, September 21, 1982). "Inside the restaurant, he saw the owner of the restaurant Mrs. Azarcon, two maids and two dead bodies, identified as those of the late Atty. Maramba and Polie Lt. Rumbaoa. He did not see the body of the late Pat. Elpidio Sagun because he was informed that he was then still alive and was rushed to the emergency hospital in Cauayan but died at the junction at Luna, Isabela. In his ocular inspection of the crime scene, he picked up five (5) empty shells (Exhs. "K-2", "K-3", "K-4", "K-5" and "K-6"), the four inside the restaurant, while the other one was recovered outside just in front of the main door. He likewise recovered inside the restaurant one (1) deformed lead/slug (Exh. "K-8") and two (2) lead cores (Exhs. "K-9" and "K-10"). He asked the owner Mrs. Delia Azarcon who shot and killed the late Atty. Maramba and Police Lt. Cesar Rumbaoa and she said it was Angelito Alivia who shot them. Being a doctor himself, he examined the two bodies and found that the late Atty. Maramba suffered two gunshot wounds, one at the left occipital region on the head and one at the interior surface of the scapula (chest) with a bore at his T-shirt. In the case of the late "Eyewitness Virgilio Yanuaria testified that the accused Angelito Alivia suddenly shot the late Atty. Jr. 1982). "J". (tsn.. Severino Goday. while he proceeded to the municipal building to report the incident to Cpl. 1273). 250-274. NBI. testified that he conducted the autopsy examination on the cadaver of the deceased Atty. Police Lt. 1982. Norberto Maramba. (tsn. Similarly. 3) and exited thru door No. (tsn. Col. "Immediately after the shooting. Elpidio Sagun upon request of their relatives. Cesar Rumbaoa.Police Lt. Cesar Rumbaoa and Pat. Oscar M. Cabatuan. Pascual and the latter submitted them to the Police The accused verbally admitted to Col. Elpidio Sagun. pp. from the same firearm (Exh. "J-1" and "J-2"). Ilagan. pp. Later Mayor Acosta called for Pat. Police Lt. The pictures taken were developed and Mayor Acosta identified the pictures of the late Police Lt. taken by M/Sgt Severino Goday. Elpidio Sagun. Juan Rigor. "K") which he used in the killing of the deformed slugs. Jose Pascual in the presence of Pat. Calamagui. Mayor Acosta directed him to call for a photographer and also Dr. pp. "P". and "P-3". Angobung). pp.. Investigator. From the trajectory of the gunshot wounds on the head of the deceased Atty. The cause of death of each of the three (3) victims was hemorrhage due to gun shot wounds. Photographer de la Cruz took the pictures and Dr. Maramba and Police Lt. Lunasco. the accused Angelito Rumbaoa and the other at the left side wall of the Alivia. It was possible that deceased Atty. "Meanwhile. Rumbaoa which shows that the assailant was shot at close range and the muzzle of the gun used was at a distance of not more than 24 inches from the head. These empty shells. PC). Artemio Alivia. pp. Cesar Rumbaoa. 203-210. 1982. Medico Legal Officer.. "P-2". 285-288. pp. Isabela. 1982. both of the neck and also a gunshot wound at the right lateral root of the neck. "The empty shells and slugs were given to Cpl. "Dr. for ballistic examination. 218-225. Isabela. and based on this report. He likewise noticed three (3) bullet marks. Maramba. 2. Cabatuan. pp.. in Criminal Case No. as Exhs. FACTUAL ANALYSIS "Counsel for the defense admits that the offenses with which the accused was charged are capital offenses. 38 with magazine were later submitted to the Azarcon Restaurant. the accused executed an extra- judicial confession (Exhs.. Manila. which carry the supreme penalty of death. record. Cesar Rumbaoa. record. southern portion of the restaurant. 158-167. in that same afternoon of June 4. voluntarily surrendered to the Provincial Commander. (Testimonies of Col. "P-1". which were Cabatuan. deformed slugs. (tsn. Danilo del Rosario. tsn. Maramba fell to the cemented floor. one beside the fallen body of Atty. 532937 (Exh. December 15. "K"). he suffered a gunshot wound at the left maxilla surrounded by blackening discolorations and another wound at the left lateral surface. Norberto Maramba at Centro. pushed Virgilio Yanuaria on the shoulders to save him and the latter escaped crouching towards the inside door (door No. cartridge and lead cores were fired three (3) victims. of June 4.. Florendo. duly identified by Mayor Acosta (Exh. The first gun shot wound was fatal and the victim Atty. Isabela with the use of Llama automatic pistol Cal. "Q. NBI. Norberto Maramba. Isabela. 1982). Ruben Angobung. ibid) parte. at the pistol Cal. NBI. "In addition to this. it was possible that the assailant was then at the back of said victims (Testimony of Dr. both of INP. pictures were taken of the dead body of the late Atty. Cabatuan. Pedro Constancio arrived. Maramba. Jr. 38. revolver. Atty. Florendo that Investigator. "C. He heard several gun reports thereafter. "When Pat.. Cesar Rumbaoa. the Rural Health Officer of Cabatuan. Cesar Rumbaoa were likewise shot when they have already fallen on the cemented floor as evidenced by the gunshot wounds on their heads. ibid). There is evidence that the accused again shot the victim while lying down. located at the public market. Maramba. INP. He also found inside the restaurant one. 1982). He freely and voluntarily admitted having shot to death Atty. Maramba and Police Lt. Isabela. located inside the public market of Cabatuan.. Headquarters in the presence of his lawyer uncle. another just beneath the head of Police Lt. Jr. PC. December 1.. inside a tuck in holster. (tsn. Oscar M. In the process. together with the Llama automatic Cesar Rumbaoa and Pat. Miguel Orodio. when the latter stood up to eat lunch upon call by the Late Police Lt. Elpidio Sagun. Isabela. September 21.M. "K"). SN-532937 (Exh. 1272. Supervising surrendered the firearm. Jose at the PC Headquarters. (tsn. accompanied by his uncle and counsel de restaurant.. cartridge and he shot to death the Late Atty. Case No. police investigators repaired to the scene of the . December 15. at PC. appearing on Pages 35-36A. and testified in Court that the empty shells. at around 2:00 o’clock P. the accused examined by Feliciano S. 22. 1982). Llama automatic Pistol SNBallistician. September 21. who was on his left side. Florendo and M/Sgt. Crim. Police Lt. Cesar Rumbaoa and Pat." p. both INP of Cabatuan. 86-148. Rigor examined the cadavers of the two bodies. inside the Azarcon Restaurant. the late Pat. He found marks on the head of Police Lt. 238-250. 3". testified which may be credited in favor of the accused. This . Pictures were taken of the cadavers of errors:jgc:chanrobles. and orally the other two victims. The criterion to determine whether the offense charged is capital is the penalty provided by the law regardless of the attendant circumstances. Florendo. when mitigate the question on bail in favor of the accused. record. who. duly assisted by II. even if after conviction a penalty less than death is imposed. Rumbaoa and Patrolman Sagun and he so admitted responsibility for their death in his confession" the crime is ostensibly that of homicide merely. Lt.. and III. Accused Angelito Alivia. examined and the autopsy reports reveal that the cause was tasked to get the statement of the accused. Manila. There were three (3) bullet marks on the that accused is entitled to bail in the account of cemented floor. Police Lt. if it may be punished by death under both the law prevailing at the time of its commission and that prevailing at the time of the application for bail. The five (6) empty shells (Exhs.000. However. 38 (Exh. PC Investigator. "P-1". Maramba. Llama probably not habitual. all recovered at the crime the accused duly assisted by his counsel. "K"). Cesar admitted to Col. the respondent Court ruled that while the evidence clearly established that the petitioner 2 "was responsible for the shooting of Atty. Jr. Severino Goday. In the process. "P-2" and "P-3". Hence. 1272). Elpidio Sagun were not in the official performance of must also already render a decision in the case. Witness Feliciano "There are present. As pointed out by the petitioner in its memorandum. 1272) was freely and voluntarily given by (Exhs. and pp. contrary to the findings of the trial court. deformed slugs. In its assailed decision. p. respondent IAC concurred with the trial court that the charges against accused are capital offenses and that evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. Supervising Ballistician. Ocampo" which is not controlling. Provincial Commander. Case erred in holding that the evidence of guilt of accused No. Thus. Florendo advised the accused in the Rumbaoa and the late Pat. Maramba (Exh. has to be not only a complete trial but the trial court Ilagan and voluntarily surrendered to Col. of death of said two victims was hemorrhage due to gun when called to testify in Court told the story that the shot wounds. Atty. 7. "k"). another just beneath the head of the late dated January 23. interviewed by Mayor Benedicto Acosta who arrived at Persuasively. "I. Maramba. Elpidio Sagun. one beside the fallen body of the late P80. their duties as peace officers at the time of the incident. "K. told the 20. "K-2". Delia Azarcon. whose bodies lay prostrate on the Notwithstanding said findings of facts. that it was the accused Angelito Alivia who shot the three (3) victims. presence of his lawyer to have his oral confession there is evidence that said two victims were likewise reduced in writing. (p. PC. the rationale of the provision lies in the difficulty and impracticability of determining the nature of the offense on the basis of the penalty actually imposable. 10same afternoon not long after the shooting." (pp. The cadavers were agreed. 2. Rumbaoa (Exhs. the test will require consideration not only of evidence showing commission of the crime but also evidence of the "To top it all. 38 (Exh. NBI. Respondent Intermediate Appellate Court gravely erred in relying on the resolution in the case of "Montano v. "P". proceedings as they relate to the legal incident in question. said two mitigating circumstances may the restaurant upon being informed of the incident that have greater weight after trial on the merits. Cal. 21. The crimes charged are clearly capital offenses as the phrase is defined in Sec. there his lawyer-uncle. "K-9" and "K-10"). 1983. but at this stage of the automatic pistol. Ilagan.crime immediately thereafter. the IAC ruled cemented floor. and the other at the left side wall of this petition with the following assigned alleged the restaurant. is not strong. Rollo) Mayor. were subjected to ballistic examination at the NBI. record.extra-judicial confession (Exh. the owner of the restaurant. Cesar Rumbaoa and Pat.00 thus nullifying the Orders of the trial court. that the empty shells.ph the late Atty. Rumbaoa. rollo) The contentions of petitioner are well-taken.com. "K-4". Respondent Intermediate Appellate Court gravely aggravating and mitigating circumstances. left for erred in holding that Lt. Crim. Accused surrendered the firearm used. Oscar M. and "K-6") and the two lead cores Case No. "J". scene (Azarcon restaurant). 36-36-A. respectively. 1983 and May 15. Otherwise. namely the late Police Lt. two (2) mitigating circumstances Lunasco. 5 Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. "K-5". cartridge and namely: (1) voluntary surrender and (2) drunkenness lead cores were fired from the same gun. which the accused and counsel shot by the accused Angelito Alivia. Crim. such circumstances may not sway to "Mrs. However. Respondent Intermediate Appellate Court gravely p. immediately after the incident. Manila. "Q") and that of the late Police Lt. "There is no eyewitness presented on the shooting of LLama automatic pistol Cal. not murder. An offense is capital. M/Sgt. before treacherous shooting of the two peace officers.com. Maramba. Although both were attack upon an unarmed victim. be bailable by sufficient sureties. successively shot Lt.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary the trial court of the guilt of the accused (respondent herein) is a clear deviation from Our ruling laid down in The commission of the crimes charged was attended the case of Bolanos v. without warning. Jr. 2. dela Cruz. Cuadra. p. This decision is immediately executory.ph by the bullets of the accused. caught by surprise as a result of which they died. the qualifying circumstance of treachery is evident and the crime committed is murder (People v. the assailed decision of respondent IAC is hereby SET ASIDE and the orders of the lower court denying the petition for bail are hereby REINSTATED. Maramba did not sense prosecution. This is indicated accused to provisional liberty pending trial. they were unable to offer qualified by treachery (People v.. Fernan. Atty. L-27973. Payan. July 31. all persons shall. Alegria. conviction. 1979. and it has determined the affirmative in thus case after Maramba was fatally hit on the back of his head and consideration of the evidence already presented by the fell to the cement floor. the killing is murder armed with the service guns. Sagun were killed while in the deceased had no inkling that the accused was armed performance of their duties. . defense (People v. judgment is hereby rendered giving due course to the petition. as respondent admitted. Feria (Chairman).com:cralaw:red eyewitness Virgilio Yanuaria to the shooting of Atty. except Virgilio Yanuaria testified that accused suddenly and those charged with capital offenses when evidence of without warning shot the deceased Atty. the evidence shows that and that he would be carried by passion to resort to while both were admittedly in civilian clothes during the violence considering his prominent stature in the incident in question they were in the performance of locality. sudden. and furthermore. Dela personally and that. his bail bond is hereby cancelled and he is ordered committed to prison. Accused instead the victim was not in a position to offer an effective suddenly and without warning." 3 by the fact that a revolver still tucked in its holster was found at the crime scene beside the bodies of the The posture taken by the respondent Court in granting victims showing that one of the victims was unable to bail to the accused and in disregarding the findings by pull out his gun. In the absence of manifest abuse of any danger that he would be shot by the accused discretion." (p. L-34089-90. It is the trial court which is tasked to Maramba when the latter turned his back towards the determine whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong accused and returned to his table to eat.defeats the purpose of bail. rollo) WHEREFORE. SO ORDERED. to by treachery as established by the testimony of the wit:chanrobles. August 9. L-40792. JJ.and when there was a deliberate surprise that they were peace officers." (Bolanos v. Alampay and Gutierrez. Maramba and by strong evidence as to the "Under the Constitution. resistance and put up a defense due to the suddenness August 18. Candado. Angelito Rollo. 1978). which is to entitle the and close succession of the shots. Rumbaoa and Pat.. Alivia. Sagun to death knowing fully well 1978). 164. supra) (Emphasis supplied for emphasis) (p. Successive shots hit the two peace officers who were Anent the issue of whether or not the deceased Lt. 162 & 163. was no previous grudge or misunderstanding rollo) between him (accused) and Atty. October 23. We are not prepared to substitute our considering that he and the accused knew each other judgment for that of the trial court. If the accused is out on bail. Accused third paragraph. 171. and without giving the victim the opportunity to defend himself or repel the initial attack. Atty. page 66. Endnotes: 1. authority in protecting and covering civilians from the when the attack was so sudden and unexpected that indiscriminate firing by the accused. The Rumbaoa and Pat. Rollo. On these issues the trial court their duties as police officers when fired upon and killed ruled:jgc:chanrobles. concur. L-39089-90. 1978). 3. Petitioner’s Memorandum. there Cruz. unexpected. As peace officers. Norberto guilt is strong. People v. their initial reaction to the shooting was to assert their "There is treachery although the shooting was frontal. Concepcion. J. and Zaldivar. L-19361 February 26. (8 C. MACAPANTON ABBAS and THE the strength of a strong presumption of guilt. in denying his motion for bail. 1991 proof of guilt of the accused is presumptively strong. C.R. or to enter into any nice inquiry as to the weight that would A reading of the order complained of clearly shows be allowed to the evidence for or against the accused. p.reconsideration of this last order having been denied. with costs. evidence to prove the guilt of petitioner.L. GR No. great. After proper proceedings. before PEPITO MAGNO.P. No. the petition under was filed prematurely. petitioner filed a motion for bail.00. He is accused of a capital J. 576). the case.000. stage of the proceeding. Prior to the filing of the information in the latter sufficient to justify the conclusion that His Honor erred of a witness for the prosecution is not sufficient in court.. and after a hearing held thereon. petitioner. in the opinion of the respondent judge." (Ex-parte Page 255. the motion for bail. Bengzon accused shall be denied bail. Criminal Procedure 1955 ed. App. concur. Bautista Angelo. 13 SCRA 233 . JJ. discretion. No.participated after a hearing on the motion for reconsideration. for the denial denied by the respondent judge on the ground that of bail. In the afternoon of the same the date. 1991 in the commission of the offense of which he is stayed the effectivity of the order granting bail and.S. It is enough. 1961 granting the motion and fixing the bail bond in theGuided sum by the above ruling the Court is of the opinion that J. Bernabe et al. claiming that he had just received sufficient shows that the accused Pepito Magno has Aswat v. respondent judge issued a order on November 24. nor Assistant Provincial Fiscal Leo D. p. It is sufficient that the evidence presented by the consideration is dismissed and the writ prayed for A second motion for bail was filed subsequently by prosecution induces the belief that the accused had denied. 1965 Constitution and the Rules of Court. According to the law as interpreted by the said court. Barrera. the respondent judge denied him bail only on HON. the fiscal moved for a reconsideration of the petition for bail. committing a grave abuse of discretion. The hearing of an application for bail is summary in nature.R.committed the the offense.J. while under the claiming that. Regala. Court 88555.. November 21. of P40. but the sametestimony was or abused his discretion in so holding. 88555 November 21. that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption PREMISES CONSIDERED.. Therefore. offense. 887. Abbas. itselfitto entitle the accused to bail.J. It has also been In Criminal Case No. the will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further respondents. thereby His Honor states the following: PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF DAVAO. evidence presented during the summary hearing on evidence may be therein offered and admitted. 285-A filed with the Municipal offense of which he is charged with other persons. the motion for bail showed "that the accused Pepito DIZON. Petitioner's motion thefor Magna v. Tomas Trinidad and Aportadera and Palabrica On for such hearing. the charged order with other persons. there is nothing before us. the G. strong. Reyes. 77 Phil. At this for bail the Court does not go into the merits of Davao where it was docketed as Criminal Caseapplication No. Galido." (Padilla. petitioner. only if the evidence of guilt against him is vs." held Court of the City of Davao against Francisco Nuñez andthat "to sustain a refusal of bail in a capital case it is Casting aside other unnecessary pronouncements enough that evidence induces the belief that the accused others. conviction.. The least that can be said about the evidence on record.: 94). he filed the present special civil action of certiorari. The evidence presented during the hearing of the however. petitioner Pepito Magno made in the order complained of. without passing upon the merits of the order. In the order of the respondent judge complained of. respondents. 270 citing Magno has participated in the commission of the Ocampo vs. 93. the respondent judge really found and held was that Cal. The evidence. said 82 court the evidence of guilt presented against petitioner was courts forwarded the case to the Court of First Instance of like the case cited above it appears that in an strong and justified denial of his motion for bail. is that was finally set aside and another was issued denying G. the Court "does not seek to try the merits Petitioner's contention is without merit. Medialdes for that.. inconsistency or contradiction in the 7155.B. we believe that what have was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by committed the offenses. 204 SCRA 205. It is petitioner's contention that. petitioner. Paredes. without passing on the merits. for Robbery with Rape. a person charged respondent judge committed a grave abuse of with a capital offense may be denied bail. Makalintal. 55). Bengzon. where We observed that the right to a municipal ordinances. petitioner is properly deemed estopped to deny such Corporal. BRIGADIER-GENERAL ALEJANDRO GALIDO. December 1988..—Any person subject to military law who that the right to bail invoked by the private respondents in G. 5 committed outside a military installation and hence the (Emphasis supplied). for offenses falling within this article. 6 by then respondent Brigadier General Alejandro Galido 1 as through the Third Division. As the law now stands. No. which resulted in long as the accused is subject to military law. offense was cognizable by a regular. speaking through Mr.W.R. Nebres were committed outside and those committed inside a military relief of bail from the SOLCOM-GCM. as an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. In 1948.A. R.filed the instant petition. crime. Lucena City. Camp Guillermo Nakar. He assails the jurisdiction of the recognized the jurisdiction of the General Court-Martial. De Villa. breach of law or violationWe of find municipal the Baguio City Jail until he was transferred to a SOLCOM 95020 has traditionally not been recognized and is not available in the ordinances which is recognized as an offense of a penal nature and detention cell on 31 December 1988. reservation shall also be punished as a court-martial may FELICIANO. in his capacity as Commander of the Southern Luzon Command. however. respondent. (2) that Article 94. . or (B) outside any such reservation when On 20 April 1989. Justice Cruz. Aswat and Nebres were assigned to the SOLCOM homicide was committed in Baguio City and in an area jurisdiction. petitioner was charged before a SOLCOM does exist. 7 the Court court-martial may direct. but only "when the offended party (and each one of In this Petition for Habeas Corpus. Galido's Baguio resthouse while Nebres was assigned to act Petitioner next contends that his right to bail is explicitly as a personal driver of Brigadier General Galido's wife. et al. justification shall be for this exception was well explained by the Solicitor Article 94 of the Articles of War ("A. exception. Petitioner has been military. 2 After hearing. Article III of the Constitution. when the petitioner asked for the affirmative Petitioner Eduardo N. 242 amended Article 94."). Lucena City since then. did refer only to he is entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right offenses committed inside a Philippine military reservation pursuant to Section 13. and as falling within the jurisdiction of a court-martial. 3 shot and killed. J. A. the Court.. committed outside a military reservation or installation. the specification punished as a court-martial may direct: In imposingGeneral the penalties as follows: being homicide. commits any felony. Baguio City police authorities and was briefly incarcerated at Various Crimes. held: Art 94.W. 4 he shall be punished as a recently ruled that the guarantee is not without any the death of Nebres. (A) inside a reservation of the Armed Forces Nakar. A. petitioner challenges the required respondent to make a return of the writ before the the offended parties if there be more than one)" is similarly jurisdiction of the General Court-Martial which was convened Third Division of the Court." the Court has very under Article 2. providing that offenses committed outside a military from the time of commencement of his detention. On 29 The distinction upon which petitioner anchors his argument guaranteed in Section 13. Aswat and victim Felix B. Records disclose that petitioner voluntarily surrendered to the en banc. Baguio City. is punishable under the penal laws of the Philippines or under detained at the SOLCOM Headquarters in Camp Guillermo This much was suggested in Arula. subject to military law. petitioner was involved in a shooting was obliterated sometime ago. ("AFP") respectively holding the ranks Private First Class and SOLCOM-GCM. petitioner. alleging that the specification of Hence. as incident at Dominican Hills. resolved to require the There is no question that both petitioner and the deceased Commanding General of the Southern Luzon Command parties to file their memoranda in amplification of their Nebres were subject to military law at the time the latter was ("SOLCOM") to try petitioner for a specification (offense) respective oral arguments. speedy trialthe is given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail of the Philippines. civilian court.:p The Court en banc issued the writ of habeas corpus and direct. (3) that he should be given his due base pay and other pay. in its original form. contending: (1) thatoffenses the provided in the penal laws of the Philippines or in such specification of homicide with which he was charged municipal was ordinances shall be taken into consideration. by aside from the allowances he has been receiving. computed Pacifico M. Article III of the Constitution. Armed Forces of the Philippines. ASWAT. the penalties for such The unique structure of the military should be enough reason to exempt military men While the court-martial proceedings were going on. offended party (and each one of the offended parties if not there be General Court-Martial ("SOLCOM-GCM") with violation of more than one) is a person subject to military The law. In Comendador vs. Monje for petitioner. he in effect both enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines installation or reservation.W. vs. Petitioner seeks to make a distinction between offenses Moreover. as defined Although the right to bail applies to "all. but Aswat was detailed as caretaker of Brigadier General outside any military installation or reservation. No. petitioner EDUARDO N.. A.W. "any person subject to subsistence. is a person subject to military from "allowances" which is limited to "quarters. concur. JJ. the Court Resolved to DISMISS the Petition for Habeas Corpus for lack of merit.J." 10 under these article shall be placed in confinement or in arrest. Purganan. Gov't of USA vs. Griño-Aquino and Medialdea. On the premise of "no work no pay". GUILLERMO G. represented by the Philippine Department of Justice.: In extradition proceedings.A. September 24. In payment thereof to the enlisted man. and under Article 70. travel. Branch 42. is not entitled to receive pay as distinguished underlying the authority to impose confinement is the need to allowances until the result of the trial is known. while petitioner is not entitled to receive any base pay or any other pay during his detention. e argument that denial from the military of the right to bail would violate equal protection clause is not acceptable. However. or the result confining the petitioner. are allowed the fiduciary use of The authority of the respondent to order the arrest and y the government for the discharge of their duties and responsibilities and confinement of the petitioner flows from his general t of revenues collected from the people. that any enable the proper military authority to instill discipline with enlisted man who is placed on a full duty status and performs the command and thereby achieve command efficiency.R. or the result thereof. By regular duties while awaiting trial by court-martial. shall be as directed by The petitioner is a person subject to military law facing charges the Chief of Staff. At present. Concerning this issue. Narvasa. ACCORDINGLY. No pronouncement to costs. Cruz. September 24. 148571. and his release from confinement Defense. SO ORDERED. But they cannot say they have been discriminated against The law defines "pay" to include "base pay and all cause they are not allowed the same right that is extended to civilians. and he cannot carry out his feasibility and advisability of releasing him or relaxing the terms of normal military functions. JIMENEZ a.' (as amended by R. DECISION PANGANIBAN. petitioner's unmilitary conduct may thereof. 2002] GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. respondents. petitioner is receiving a monthly cused officers can complain if they are denied bail and other members of allowance of P540. No. shall be entitled to receive all his pay and allowances for be curtailed from spreading within the ranks of the command.. 8 the Court en section. the law expressly permits him to receive his regular and other allowances. Provided. . ceased to perform his ordinary in the discretion of the military authorities. 18. with the approval of the Secretary of National before a general court-martial. while under detention. His continued detention necessarily better position to appreciate the gravity of said charges and the restrains his freedom of work. additional pay for the length of service or type of duty such mphasis supplied) as longevity pay and flying pay. he is directly under the command of then Brigadier General Galido. and Presiding Judge. (Emphasis supplied) pending the trial of the charges against him is a matter that lies largely Petitioner. are prospective extraditees entitled to notice and hearing before warrants for their arrest can be issued? Equally important.. Justice Vasquez. the period of such duty unless the same shall have been lawfully The necessity for such confinement is a matter properly left to forfeited by the approved sentence of a court-martial prior to actual the sound discretion of petitioner's superior officers. There is no showing by petitioner that he was placed on "full duty status" and performing "regular duties" pending trial. are they entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending? In general. and such other allowances as may by military law charged with crime or with a serious offense law become payable to army personnel. Minister of National Defense. as circumstances may require. Article 6 of R. held: trial by court-martial. provides: Confinement is one way of ensuring presence during sessions Sec. Petitioner being assaigned ctivities outside of and against the existing political system. 2002 [G. petitioner cannot insist on his right to receive base pay or any other pay while under detention. PURGANAN. speaking through Mr. law. the restoration to full duty status of enlisted men awaiting banc. An enlisted man awaiting trial by Court-martial or the of the General Court-Martial. C.A.onstitutional coverage on the right to bail. to SOLCOM. during detention. and MARK B. 1067). his confinement pending the trial and disposition of the case filed against him. A.00.. vs. it is vital to note that mutinous soldiers operate framework of the democratic system. 9 military are not. petitioner. The detention. if otherwise entitled thereto. as amended." 138. m structural peculiarity.a.W." and distinguishes "pay" Petitioner. Regional Trial Court of Manila. Morales. the more important reason result thereof. They are undeniably in a military duties. Section 18. For the purposes of this Domingo vs. as already noted.k. Hon. All other insurgent elements carry jurisdiction over his command. This guarantee requires equal The third issue raised by the petitioner concerns his right to atment only of persons or things similarly situated and does not apply receive base pay and other pay during the pendency of his ere the subject of the treatment is substantially different from others. J. MARIO BATACAN CRESPO. No. the court a quo required the parties hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition to submit their respective memoranda. 2001 Order. the [Court] finds probable cause against respondent Mark Jimenez. Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: executory. 441f and 437g(d) and Title 18 US Code Branch 25.000. It held that private heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. the same to be paid in cash. (2) tax evasion. the said GR No. In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez. the RTC granted Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for hearing on SOJ. 2000 June 5.[9] By an identical vote of 9-6 -. (4) false statements. “immediate arrest” pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. The SOJ was Before the RTC could act on the Petition. this rule are laid out in this Decision. “Furthermore respondent is directed to immediately surrender to this Court his passport and the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation is likewise directed to include the name of the respondent in its Hold Departure List. the Court -.00). respondent was bereft of the right to notice and After the hearing. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents. also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. seeking to void and set aside the Orders dated May 23. as well as the exceptions to.”[4] Essentially. 139465. the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action.[7] The TRO prohibited the Department of Section 2. This Resolution has become final and Memorandum. inter alia. 139465 entitled Secretary of Justice v.[3] The first assailed Order set for hearing petitioner’s application for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of Respondent Mark B.it reconsidered and court allowing the accused in an extradition case to be reversed its earlier Decision. The Case Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. the Petition prays for the lifting of the bail Order. The warrant had been issued in connection with the following charges in Indictment No. the cancellation of the bond. through diplomatic channels. In his process. in violation of Title 18 Upon learning of the request for his extradition. The Petition alleged. The dispositive portion of the Order reads as follows: “WHEREFORE. that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 15. represented by the . 0720 and 0809 and accompanied by duly authenticated documents requesting the extradition of Mark B.the answer to these two novel questions is “No. this Court fixes the reasonable amount of bail for respondent’s temporary liberty at ONE MILLION PESOS (Php 1. on the other hand. filed with the RTC on May 18. directed the issuance of a warrant. also known as the Extradition Law. but at the same time granted bail to Jimenez. that in case a warrant should issue. however. the Government of post bail in the amount of P100.after three reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial justices changed their votes -. The validity of the TRO was. Jimenez. this Court issued its October 17. supplemented by Note Nos. 99-00281 CR-SEITZ: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit certain offenses in violation of Title 18 US Code Section 371. assailed by the SOJ in a Petition before this Court in 1069. sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale No. 1069. (3) wire fraud. Ralph C. 1999. the United States of America. and (5) illegal Jimenez sought and was granted a Temporary campaign contributions. Consequently and taking into consideration Section 9. in violation of Title 2 US Code Restraining Order (TRO) by the RTC of Manila.dismissed the Petition. Branch 42. Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. and the taking of Jimenez into legal custody. 2001.[8] In its assailed May 23. in violation of Title 26 US Code Section 7201. 0522 dated June 16. Philippine DOJ. the appropriate Petition for Extradition which was docketed as Extradition Case No. In that hearing. 2001. 0597.” The explanation of and the reasons for. Accordingly let a Warrant for the arrest of the respondent be issued. 01192061. 2001[1] and July 3.000. the Justice (DOJ) from filing with the RTC a petition for Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his his extradition.”[10] which prayed that petitioner’s grant the latter a reasonable period within which to file application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. he be allowed to Finding no more legal obstacle. petitioner manifested its Resolution. 2001[2] issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. in violation of Title 18 US Code Sections 1343 and 2.by a vote of 9-6 -. The Facts This Petition is really a sequel to GR No. 1999.[6] the United States Government. US Code Sections 1001 and 2. Sections 441b. Initially. Jimenez.000. in the light of the foregoing. The second challenged Order. Lantion. a comment and supporting evidence. Respondent ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the Jimenez filed before it an “Urgent Manifestation/Exextradition request and its supporting papers and to Parte Motion. pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No.[5] Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty. ‘6.[12] Hence. the public respondent received no evidence of ‘special circumstances’ which may justify release on bail. 2001. “The public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in adopting a procedure of first hearing a potential extraditee before issuing an arrest warrant under Section 6 of PD No. the court below issued its questioned July 3. 2001. (2) the assailed orders are a patent nullity. instead of in this Court. which [were] arising from petitioner’s failure to file a Motion for relied upon. 1069. issued. Rodriguez et al.’ CA-G. had “The public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting been recalled before the issuance of the subject bail to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the prayer for orders. ‘8. relied upon by the public respondent in granting bail.R. The Court of Appeals Resolution promulgated on May 10. 2001 Order. we shall take up the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Section 4. ‘7. SP No. Jimenez was granted provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated July 4. Thereafter. The Court’s Ruling The Petition is meritorious. directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash.[11] After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond.[15] We shall also preliminarily discuss five extradition ‘3. unless guided by the decision that this Honorable Court will render in this case. Manila. Rule 114 alleged prematurity of the Petition for Certiorari (Bail) of the Rules of Court. The risk that Jimenez will flee is high. The presumption is against bail in extradition postulates that will guide us in disposing of the proceedings or proceedings leading to extradition. the parties would still bring the matter to this Honorable Court to have the issues resolved once and for all [and] to have a binding precedent that all lower courts ought to follow. 64589. Assuming that bail is a matter of discretion in extradition proceedings. cause adverse effect on the ability of the Philippines to comply with its obligations under existing extradition . the filing of a reconsideration motion would serve no useful purpose. as amended. The Hon. as the passage of sufficient time would give Jimenez ample opportunity to escape and avoid extradition. would resolve to grant bail in favor of the potential extraditees and would give them opportunity to flee and thus. The conditions attached to the grant of bail are ineffectual and do not ensure compliance by the Philippines with its obligations under the RP-US Extradition Treaty. and no special circumstance exists that will engender a wellfounded belief that he will not flee. cannot be used as bases for allowing bail in Reconsideration in the RTC and to seek relief in the extradition proceedings. On the assumption that bail is available in extradition proceedings or proceedings leading to extradition.The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing on June 15. Article III (right to bail clause) of the are pending. ‘4. Presiding Judge. and (3) there are pending issues on bail both in the extradition courts and the Court of Appeals. Preliminary Matters Alleged Prematurity of Present Petition Petitioner submits the following justifications for not filing a Motion for Reconsideration in the Extradition Court: “(1) the issues were fully considered by such court after requiring the parties to submit their respective memoranda and position papers on the matter and thus. which. vs. this Petition. (2) the Honorable Court of Appeals had in one case[17] ruled on the issue by disallowing bail but the court below refused to recognize the decision as a judicial guide and all other courts might likewise adopt the same attitude of refusal. ‘5. bail is not a matter of right but only of discretion upon clear showing by the applicant of the existence of special circumstances. and (3) the need for relief is extremely urgent. in the absence of any law that provides for such power. 2001 in the case entitled ‘Eduardo T. Branch 17. petitioner submits the following reasons: “(1) even if the petition is lodged with the Court of Appeals and such appellate court takes cognizance of the issues and decides them. and (2) whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings ‘2. An extradition court has no power to authorize bail. and (4) the issues raised are purely of law. Preliminarily. RTC.”[16] For resorting directly to this Court instead of the CA. the substantive questions that this Court will because: address are: (1) whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be ‘1.’”[14] bail and in allowing Jimenez to go on provisional liberty In sum. Section 13.[13] Issues Petitioner presents the following issues for the consideration of this Court: I. Court of Appeals (CA). absent factual and legal basis therefor. substantive issues. II. [19] As a fourth exception. This has been the judicial policy directly to the merits of the case.”[18] As a general rule. we resolve to take In the interest of justice and to settle once and for all the important issue of bail in extradition proceedings. as correctly observed by petitioners. namely: Uy vs. “a majority of nations in the world community have come to look upon extradition as the major effective instrument of international co-operation in the suppression of crime. primary jurisdiction over the present petition in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations so as to promptly put an end to the present controversy which. “That the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higher interests of justice is wellentrenched in our jurisprudence. In a number of other exceptional cases. Bercero vs. the Court has also ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration before availment of the remedy of certiorari is not a sine qua non. Contreras. Arranz.. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s mandamus. Legaspi. a chance to correct the errors imputed to it.’ circumstances justify the same. governments are adjusting their methods of dealing with criminals and crimes that transcend international boundaries. De Guzman. et. et. x x x requiring the petitioners to file their petition first with the Court of Appeals would only result in a waste of time and money. a petition for certiorari before a higher court will not prosper unless the inferior court has been given. In the instant petition. x x x.[25] Since PD 1069 is intended as a guide for the implementation of extradition treaties to which the Philippines is a signatory.” “Pursuant to said judicial policy.[26] understanding certain postulates of extradition will aid us in properly deciding the issues raised here. has certain exceptions: (1) when the issue raised is purely of law. when the questions raised are the same as those that have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court. clearly and specifically set out in the and important reasons or exceptional and compelling petition. which would Likewise. al.”[30] It is the only regular system that has been devised to return fugitives to the jurisdiction of a court competent to try them in accordance with municipal and international law. A cardinal rule in the interpretation of a treaty or a law is to ascertain and give effect to its intent. We reiterate what we said in Piczon vs. ‘x x x. warrant. and. this Court has suspended its own Fortich v. there are special and important reasons therefor. has sparked national interest because of the magnitude of the problem created by the issuance of the assailed resolution. Corona[22]we stated: rules and excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice so “[T]he Supreme Court has the full discretionary power to require. or the nature and importance of the been taken by the parties involved and proceed issues raised. concurrent with in Cuaresma: that of Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals. First.treaties. Court of Appeals:[23] ‘Be it remembered that rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. as yet. the issues in the present case also involve pure questions of law that are of public interest. With the advent of easier and faster means of international travel. prohibition. no local jurisprudence to guide lower courts.’ to be observed and which has been reiterated in subsequent cases. Their strict and rigid application. though. Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of Crime. 1. Accordingly. we deem it best to take cognizance of the present case.[21] In Time and again. over petitions for certiorari. This rule. or (3) in case of urgency. extradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of suppressing crime[27] by facilitating the arrest and the custodial transfer[28] of a fugitive[29] from one state to the other. and we original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important entertain direct resort to us in cases where special reasons therefor. Hence. As we have further stated “This Court has original jurisdiction. al. (2) when public interest is involved.[24] we held Torres vs. Five Postulates of Extradition The substantive issues raised in this case require an interpretation or construction of the treaty and the law on extradition. the flight of affluent criminals from one country to another for the purpose of committing crime and evading prosecution has become more frequent. quo warranto and habeas corpus. Such proceedings constitute a matter of first impression over which there is. we forego a lengthy take cognizance of the petition filed directly [before] it if disquisition of the proper procedure that should have compelling reasons. a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with. through a motion for reconsideration. Today. this Court has allowed a direct invocation of result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than its original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari when promote substantial justice. Moreover.[20] Aside from being of this nature. as follows: Advincula vs. must always be avoided. This is established policy.[31] . ”[32] In Secretary v. In terms of the quantum of evidence to be satisfied.” Indeed. Hence. One manifest purpose of this trend towards globalization is to deny easy refuge to a criminal whose activities threaten the peace and progress of civilized countries. the process of extradition does convicted of a crime is restored to a jurisdiction with not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence the best claim to try that person. His guilt or innocence will be questions that are the prerogative of that adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited. as a rule. It is to the great interest of the Philippines to be part of this irreversible movement in light of its vulnerability to crimes. upon extradition to the requesting state. From an absence of extradition arrangements flight abroad by the ingenious criminal receives direct encouragement and thus indirectly does the commission of crime itself.[38] The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings in court is only to determine whether the are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an extraditee x x extradition request complies with the Extradition Treaty. the rules of evidence in an extradition proceeding allow admission of evidence under less stringent standards. The United States adheres to a similar practice whereby the Secretary of State exercises wide discretion in balancing the equities of the case and the demands of the nation’s foreign relations before making the ultimate decision to extradite. easier and faster international travel. We need to cooperate with other states in order to improve our chances of suppressing crime in our own country. More and more.[37] Such determination during the extradition proceedings “An extradition [proceeding] is sui generis. in extradition which is sui generis -. and an expanding ring of international crimes and criminals. it is evident that the extradition court is not called upon to ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the person sought to be extradited. 2. Laws involving crimes and crime prevention are undergoing universalization.they are not. For to the extent that efficient means of detection and the threat of punishment play a significant role in the deterrence of crime within the territorial limits of a State. otherwise. To begin with. In criminal proceedings.[36] extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature. as pointed out in Secretary of Justice v. the Treaty carries the . in an extradition proceeding.’ Finally. proceedings involve a full-blown trial. and whether the person sought is extraditable.[34] More pointedly. and our legislative branch ratified it. Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith. 4. An extradition proceeding is summary in nature while criminal Fourth. The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the Accused Second. in this era of globalization.[35] That signature signifies our full faith that the accused will be given. x x x. It is not a will only result in needless duplication and delay. all relevant and basic rights in the criminal proceedings that will take place therein. Lantion. or would have been directly attacked for its unconstitutionality.” Given the foregoing. our duly authorized representative’s signature on an extradition treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and the willingness of the other state to protect the basic rights of the person sought to be extradited. we cannot afford to be an isolationist state.“An important practical effect x x x of the recognition of the principle that criminals should be restored to a jurisdiction competent to try and punish them is that the number of criminals seeking refuge abroad will be reduced. Hence. In contradistinction to a criminal proceeding. Lantion[33] we explained: “The Philippines also has a national interest to help in suppressing crimes and one way to do it is to facilitate the extradition of persons covered by treaties duly entered [into] by our government. the treaty would not have been signed. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis Third. especially transnational crimes.in a class by itself -. the constitutional rights of the accused are at fore. our executive branch of government voluntarily entered into the Extradition Treaty. Extradition is merely a measure of international judicial criminal proceeding which will call into operation all assistance through which a person charged with or the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. an extradition treaty presupposes that both parties thereto have examined. our courts may adjudge an individual extraditable but the President has the final discretion to extradite him. so the existence of effective extradition arrangements and the consequent certainty of return to the locus delicti commissi play a corresponding role in the deterrence of flight abroad in order to escape the consequence of crime. unlike in a criminal case where judgment becomes executory upon being rendered final. each other’s legal system and judicial process. and that both accept and trust. a criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction while a fugitive may be ordered extradited ‘upon showing of the existence of a prima facie case. 3. constitutional rights that jurisdiction. It is not part of the function of the assisting authorities to enter into of an accused. crimes are becoming the concern of one world.[39] x. xxx xxx xxx “There are other differences between an extradition proceeding and a criminal proceeding. extradited -. This prima facie presumption finds reinforcement he should not be hurriedly and arbitrarily deprived of in the experience[44] of the executive branch: nothing his constitutional right to liberty without due process. Fifth. Temporary Arrest. as well as promotes comity[40]with the requesting state. By using the phrase “if it appears. 6. after the petition for The present extradition case further validates the extradition has been filed in court. Hearing entails sending notices to the opposing parties. the presiding judge of the court shall.including terrorists.”[43] Accordingly. ergo. extradition hearings would of the presiding judge. as set forth in the Treaty. and the other government is under notice to escape and to avoid extradition. or should the accused after having received the summons fail to answer within the time fixed. if only the accused were willing to Both parties cite Section 6 of PD 1069 in support of submit to trial in the requesting country. On the Basis of the Extradition Law It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069. a fugitive from justice. In Petitioner contends that the procedure adopted by the other words.[48] and giving them time to prepare and present such facts and arguments. not even begin. uses the word “immediate” to qualify the arrest of the accused. Such failure would discourage other states the capacity and the will to flee. Issuance of Summons.eloquently speak of his aversion Fulfilling our obligations under the Extradition Treaty to the processes in the requesting state. These other hand.[42] Is Respondent Entitled to Notice and Hearing This principle requires that we deliver the accused to Before the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest? the requesting country if the conditions precedent to extradition. shall be promptly served each upon the accused and the attorney having charge of the case. given sufficient opportunity. entitled to the delivery of the accused on the issue of and that petitioner is seeking his arrest -. done all that the treaty and the law require it to do. issuance of a warrant of arrest. Indeed.” the law further . There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight cases. underlying paints a bad image of our country before the world high risk of flight. state despite learning that the requesting state is seeking his return and that the crimes he is charged with are bailable -. right before the conclusion of his indictment Hearing. Respondent Jimenez argues that risks. 1. extradition treaty that hinges on reciprocity..gives him the proper warrant. the petitioner pleads that such procedure may set a Philippines must be ready and in a position to deliver dangerous precedent. if issued. Moreover.[41] from fleeing a second time? Verily. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be considered “immediate.” (Emphasis ours) Does this provision sanction RTC Judge Purganan’s act of immediately setting for hearing the issuance of a warrant of arrest? We rule in the negative. when it has RTC --informing the accused. It states: herein respondent -. our Extradition Law. “(2) The order and notice as well as a copy of the warrant of arrest. in that those sought to be the accused. Upon receipt of the answer.(1) leaving the requesting state “SEC. are satisfied. is that an Extradition Petition has been filed against him. Having fled once. summon the accused to appear and to answer the petition on the day and hour fixed in the order. particularly an what is there to stop him.(1) Immediately upon proceedings there. obligation to make the surrender. and (2) remaining in the requested receipt of the petition. should it be found proper. failure to fulfill our obligations thereunder circumstances point to an ever-present. the premise that persons sought to be extradited have a formulation of that procedure is within the discretion propensity to flee. we are bound by pacta sunt servanda to comply First Substantive Issue: in good faith with our obligations under the Treaty. from entering into treaties with us.[45] Prior acts of their arguments.” The law could not have intended the word as a mere superfluity but. He has demonstrated that he has community. as soon as practicable.[46] receiving facts and arguments[47] from them. the presiding judge shall hear the case or set another date for the hearing thereof.presumption that its implementation will serve the national interest. short of confinement can ensure that the accused will He further asserts that there is as yet no specific law not flee the jurisdiction of the requested state in order to or rule setting forth the procedure prior to the thwart their extradition to the requesting state. mass murderers and war criminals -. persons to be extradited are presumed to be flight On the other hand. on the whole. [H]e may issue a warrant for the immediate arrest of the accused which may be served any where within the Philippines if it appears to the presiding judge that the immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused will best serve the ends of justice. On the his predisposition to avoid them at all cost. as a means of imparting a sense of urgency and swiftness in the determination of whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. This qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant.may invoke it in future extradition 5. “[t]he demanding government. Service of Notices. a prima facie finding -. he actually concluded from these supporting documents that “probable cause” did exist. People[54] and in all the cases cited therein.under oath or affirmation -.”[53] Verily. the Exhibit J “Table of Contents for Supplemental Evidentiary Appendix” with enclosed Exhibits 121 to 132. the Exhibit L “Appendix of Witness [excerpts] Statements Referenced in the Affidavit of Betty Steward” and enclosed Statements in two volumes. step in the entire proceedings. after having already determined therefrom that a prima facie finding did exist. Attached to the Petition for Extradition. the meaning of a circumstances existed as would lead a reasonably determining probable cause for the issuance of a treaty is ambiguous. at that stage been intended. a priori. 2. (4) Annex GG. From the knowledge and the material then available to it. (3) Annex BB. 2. Savage -. In the second questioned Order. the documents sent by the US Government in support of [its] request for extradition of herein respondent are enough to convince the Court of the existence of probable cause to proceed with the hearing against the extraditee. had the holding of a hearing the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. sending to persons sought to be extradited a notice of the request for their arrest and setting it for hearing at some future date would give them ample opportunity to prepare and execute an escape. the Affidavit executed on May 26. therefore. the silence of the Law and the Treaty To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest leans to the more reasonable interpretation that there warrants. the Exhibit I “Appendix of Witness [excerpts] Statements Referenced in the Affidavit of Angela Byers” and enclosed Statements in two volumes. upon probable cause to be determined personally by however. and no the accused to answer after receiving the summons. were the following: (1) Annex H. intend something reasonable and something not accused was someone who should immediately be In Ho v. and (5) Annex MM. with a Certificate of Authentication among others. On the Basis of the Constitution Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution. evidentiary Appendices of various exhibits that constituted evidence of the crimes charged in the Indictment.sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and detention of the accused. (2) Annexes H to G. the more reasonable must have sufficient supporting documents upon which . nor with previous treaty obligations never was a judge required to go to the extent of could have determined whether such facts and conducting a hearing just for the purpose of personally towards third States. It provides: “Sec.” He inconsistent with generally recognized principles of International Law. the reasonable meaning is to be discreet and prudent person to believe that the warrant of arrest. for the very purpose of both would have been defeated by the escape of the accused from the requested state. Evidently.trial attorney in the Campaign Financing Task Force of the Criminal Division of the US Department of Justice. If. All we required was that the “judge extradition request was prima facie meritorious.[49] of fact. does not require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Hence.[51] to the less reasonable x x x . Michael E. which is invoked by Jimenez.”[50] We stress that the prima facie existence of probable cause for hearing the petition and. The trial court is not expected to make an exhaustive determination to ferret out the true and actual situation. he stated: “In the instant petition. the law could have easily and particularly describing the place to be searched so provided. In point preferred to the unreasonable. the court is expected merely to get a good first impression -. houses.conveys that accuracy is not as important as speed at such early stage. 1999 by Mr. Hence. the Constitution itself requires only the is no intention to punctuate with a hearing every little examination -. immediately upon the filing of the petition. the law specifies that the court sets a unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever hearing upon receipt of the answer or upon failure of nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. Neither the Treaty nor the Law could have intended that consequence.” that extradition proceedings are summary[52]in nature. the word “hearing” is notably absent from the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the provision. respondent judge gravely abused his discretion when he set the matter for hearing upon motion of Jimenez. and effects against Moreover. gotten an impression from these records adequate for There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused “It is taken for granted that the contracting parties him to make an initial determination of whether the before the issuance of warrants of arrest.of It is evident that respondent judge could have already complainants and the witnesses they may produce. search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except In connection with the matter of immediate arrest. arrested in order to “best serve the ends of justice. for issuing an arrest warrant was already evident from the Petition itself and its supporting documents. papers. as argued by petitioner. with Exhibits 1 to 120 (duly authenticated exhibits that constituted evidence of the crimes charged in the Indictment). It also bears emphasizing at this point and the persons or things to be seized. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. Since this is a matter of first impression. who is at the same time summoned to answer the petition and to appear at scheduled summary hearings. be more restrictive one -.would be apply to a case like extradition. the judge must study them and make. insofar as practicable and consistent with the summary nature of extradition proceedings.” Respondent Mark B. we stress that before issuing warrants of arrest. Moreover.not the opposite -.”[55] In Webb v. the judge may require the submission of further documentation or may personally examine the affiants and witnesses of the petitioner. petitioner claims that there is no provision in the Philippine Constitution granting the right to bail to a person who is the subject of an extradition request and arrest warrant. Second Substantive Issue: Is Respondent Entitled to Bail? recognizance as may be provided by law. or be released on . At his discretion. as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. In our opinion. De Leon. the only exceptions are the ones charged with offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua. unless his “Art.if he so desires -. then the magistrate must immediately issue a warrant for the arrest of the extraditee. If a different procedure were called for at all. On the other hand.in his effort to negate a prima facie finding? Such a procedure could convert the determination of a prima facie case into a full-blown trial of the entire proceedings and possibly make trial of the main case superfluous. in spite of this study and examination. a with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not evidence of guilt is strong. judges merely determine personally the probability. before conviction. Section 13 of the Constitution. lest the latter be given the opportunity to escape and frustrate the proceedings. when evidence of guilt is strong. Jimenez maintains that this constitutional provision secures the right to bail of all persons. As suggested by the use of the word “conviction. shall also apply according to Section 9 of PD 1069. the petition may be dismissed at the discretion of the judge. what would stop him from presenting his entire plethora of defenses at this stage -. not the certainty of guilt of an accused. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Supposedly. This scenario is also anathema to the summary nature of extraditions. except those charged adoption of a set of procedures more protective of the guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. the constitutional right to bail “flows from the Article III. if the presence of a prima facie case is determined. Excessive bail shall not be required. 13. judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. or at the very least.[57] In the present case. Prior to the issuance of the warrant.” At most. Sec. Extradition Different from Ordinary Criminal Proceedings We agree with petitioner. a prima facie finding whether (a) they are sufficient in form and substance. He also alleges the relevance to the present case of Section 4[59] of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court which. validating the act of respondent judge and instituting the practice of hearing the accused and his witnesses at this early stage would be discordant with the rationale for the entire system.[56] the Court categorically stated that a judge was not supposed to conduct a hearing before issuing a warrant of arrest: “Again. where the presumption bailable by sufficient sureties. we deem it wise to restate the proper procedure: Upon receipt of a petition for extradition and its supporting documents.to make his independent judgment. no prima facie finding[58] is possible. III. If. justified in view of respondent’s demonstrated predisposition to flee. because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. If the accused were allowed to be heard and necessarily to present evidence during the prima facie determination for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. All persons. judges merely further examine complainants and their witnesses. They just personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence. It does not apply to extradition proceedings.”[60] It accused. and (c) the person sought is extraditable. On the other hand. shall.” the constitutional provision on bail quoted above. (b) they show compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law. as soon as possible. In doing so. including those sought to be extradited. applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. in cases of clear insufficiency of evidence on record. is worded as presumption of innocence in favor of every accused That the case under consideration is an extradition and follows: who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as not a criminal action is not sufficient to justify the thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal. the foregoing procedure will “best serve the ends of justice” in extradition cases. the judge must not inform or notify the potential extraditee of the pendency of the petition. upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause. ” instead of taking it. through overprotection or excessively liberal treatment. the due process rights accorded to individuals must be carefully balanced against exigent and palpable government interests. It is also worth noting that before the US government He should apply for bail before the courts trying the requested the extradition of respondent. “[n]o one shall be process now has thus become hollow. since this practice would encourage the accused to voluntarily surrender to the requesting state to cut short their detention here.”[61] Hence. available only in criminal proceedings. their detention pending the resolution of extradition proceedings would fall into place with the emphasis of the Extradition Law on the summary nature of extradition cases and the need for their speedy disposition. as a general rule. yet. Exceptions to the “No Bail” Rule The rule. constitutionally. we cannot allow our country to be a haven for fugitives. persons sought to be extradited are able to evade arrest or escape from our custody. His invocation of due in arguing that.[69] . But court. It must be noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas Contrary to the contention of Jimenez.case -. extradited are bailable in the United States is not an once he is under the court’s custody. Hence. his detention prior to the conclusion of the extradition proceedings does not amount to a violation of his right to due process. in the immediate deprivation of charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly his liberty prior to his being heard. at the same time. He already deprived of x x x liberty x x x without due process of had that opportunity in the requesting state. Contrary to his contention. That his arrest and connected with invasion. instead of facing the consequences of their actions. the law or the treaty -. and (3) his opportunity. Likewise. (2) the extradition judge’s proceedings that are not criminal in nature. The denial of bail as a matter of course in extradition cases falls into place with and gives life to Article 14[67] of the Treaty. independent prima facie determination that his arrest will best serve the ends of justice before the issuance That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be of a warrant for his arrest. cowards and weaklings who. Indeed.[65] In the present case.expressly guaranteeing the right to bail in extradition proceedings. not before the extradition had already been conducted in that country. it would not be good policy to increase the risk of violating our treaty obligations if. we find no corpus finds application “only to persons judicially arbitrariness.such as those present in an extradition In this light. we repeat.in the Constitution. he ran away. adopting the practice of not granting them bail. proceedings criminal cases against him.[64] Where the circumstances -. stress. would it be proper and just for the government to increase the risk of violating its treaty obligations in order to accord Respondent Jimenez his personal liberty in the span of time that it takes to resolve the Petition for Extradition? His supposed immediate deprivation of liberty without the due process that he had previously shunned pales against the government’s interest in fulfilling its Extradition Treaty obligations and in cooperating with the world community in the suppression of crime. when the extradition court hears the writ of habeas corpus is suspended” does not detract Petition for Extradition. extradition proceedings are separate and distinct from the trial for the offenses for which he is charged. to apply for bail argument to grant him one in the present case. there is no violation of from the rule that the constitutional right to bail is his right to due process and fundamental fairness. To as an exception to the no-initial-bail rule. it was No Violation of Due Process hindered from continuing with the due processes Respondent Jimenez cites the foreign case Paretti[62] prescribed under its laws. Hence. is that bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases. law. either. However. as well as the power to promulgate rules to protect and enforce constitutional rights.”[66] Too. It cannot be taken to extradition request meets the requirements of the law mean that the right is available even in extradition and the relevant treaty. would be a step towards deterring fugitives from coming to the Philippines to hide from or evade their prosecutors. “[c]onstitutional liberties do not exist in a vacuum. a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough. point out that the doctrine does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard. In the absence of any provision -. We iterate the familiar doctrine that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard[63] but. respondent The provision in the Constitution stating that the “right to will be given full opportunity to be heard bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the subsequently. the second detention will not be arbitrary is sufficiently ensured sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely by (1) the DOJ’s filing in court the Petition with its emphasizes the right to bail in criminal proceedings for supporting documents after a determination that the the aforementioned offenses. of innocence is not at issue.call for it. choose to run and hide. because he left the jurisdiction of the requesting state before those proceedings could be completed. the judiciary has the constitutional duty to curb grave abuse of discretion[68] and tyranny. which is not normally a judicial prerogative.Furthermore. The duty of a mother to nurse her infant is so with the knowledge that he could achieve only most compelling under the law of nature. the right to due process extends to the “life. we believe and so hold that. A police officer must knowing that at any time. be treated alike both in rights enjoyed and responsibilities imposed. not a judicial. down to a question of constitutional equal protection. An elective governor has to that he is suffering from a terminal illness. we believe that the right to due process is broad enough to include the grant of basic fairness to extraditees. not to mention the 24 detention will disenfranchise his Manila district of members of the Senate.’ This made in favor of or against groups or types of simply means that all persons similarly situated shall individuals.] “The Constitution guarantees: ‘x x x nor shall any wittingly or otherwise. those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein. Never has the call of a particular duty lifted a prisoner into a different full term in office. after a potential extraditee has been arrested or placed under the custody of the law. Hence. once granted bail.000 residents. Indeed. We are not persuaded. A doctor with such legislative results which he could accomplish unique skills has the duty to save the lives of those within the confines of prison. the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community. bail may be applied for and granted as an exception. On that basis. Congress continues to function well in the v. Respondent ranks highest in the hierarchy of government. and (2) that there exist special. only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that. “The performance of legitimate and even essential We have carefully examined these circumstances and duties by public officers has never been an excuse to shall now discuss them. they did so with full awareness also be deemed the highest for that particular duty. To give a more drastic illustration. liberty or property” of every person. humanitarian and compelling circumstances[71] including. therefore.[72] the Court has already debunked the physical absence of one or a few of its members. The may not show any undue favoritism or hostility to any necessities imposed by public welfare may justify exercise of government authority to regulate even if person. interests are disregarded. It is “dynamic and resilient. if voters elect a person with full knowledge with a particular affliction. they do so serve provincial constituents. it partakes of the nature of police assistance amongst states. precision and emphatic forcefulness. The importance of a function depends on the need for of the limitations on his freedom of action. Jalosjos. disenfranchisement argument when it ruled thus: Depending on the exigency of Government that has to be addressed. The Court realizes that extradition is basically an executive. adaptable to every situation calling for its application.” it also recognizes the limits of its own prerogatives and the need to fulfill international obligations. The 1. the issue before us boils restrained by law. find that election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in Congressman a substantial differentiation which removes the accused-appellant as a prisoner from the criminal law enforcement. Along this line. In People legislation. responsibility arising from the presidential power to conduct foreign relations. any intrusion by the courts into the exercise of this power should be characterized by caution. The duties imposed by the ‘mandate of the people’ are multifarious. charged with the duties of 600. the President or the Supreme Court can “When the voters of his district elected the accusedappellant to Congress. while this Court is ever protective of “the sporting idea of fair play.”[70] Accordingly and to best serve the ends of justice. classification from those others who are validly “In the ultimate analysis. They did its exercise. In its barest concept. The Jimenez was elected as a member of the House of accused-appellant is only one of 250 members of the Representatives. In short. insidious discriminations are person be denied the equal protection of laws. he may no longer serve his maintain peace and order. as a matter of reciprocity. “Does being an elective official result in a substantial distinction that allows different treatment? Is being a “We. “A strict scrutiny of classifications is essential lest[. and since it is derived essentially from general principles of justice and fairness. free a person validly [from] prison. The organs of government “The Court cannot validate badges of inequality. The functions and duties of same class as all persons validly confined under law? the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him . Alleged Disenfranchisement accused-appellant asserts that the duty to legislate While his extradition was pending. Neither partiality nor prejudice shall be thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their displayed. Since this exception has no express or specific statutory basis. the applicant bears the burden of proving the above two-tiered requirement with clarity. he claims that his House of Representatives. so that the vital international and bilateral interests of our country will not be unreasonably impeded or compromised. Jimenez contends that there are special circumstances that are compelling enough for the Court to grant his request for provisional release on bail. the Reply.[74] which our Extradition Law requires to be summary in character. upon the resolution of the Petition for Extradition. it is a another matter that is not at issue here. Thereafter required by the RTC were memoranda on the arrest. The parties -. Jimenez’s plea for bail. a procedure not normally observed in the great majority of cases in this Tribunal. that is. This is quite court. Indeed. The trial court would again hear factual and evidentiary matters. it is settled that bail may be applied for confine him during the pendency of the case. Anticipated Delay reach of our government if and when it matters. That he has to public office is by itself a compelling reason to grant not yet fled from the Philippines cannot be taken to him bail. it would be unfair to In any event. after the Memos had been submitted. the extradition case against their representative. if the delay is due to maneuverings of discuss fully and exhaustively private respondent’s respondent.have been given more than sufficient anticipatory and academic. What is needed is a firm decision on . private respondent has not asked for a remand. Neither is it. however. It would also encourage him to and restricted in liberty of movement. Be it noted. it will only further delay these already very delayed proceedings.from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom grant bail to himself. the RTC set for bail not be justified. tedious process would be repeated in its entirety. is totally unnecessary. In the present case. he has not actually fled during the or should have been prepared for the consequences of preliminary stages of the request for his extradition. in all his voluminous pleadings and verbal propositions. that.particularly the potential extraditee -. Lawful arrest and stretch out and unreasonably delay the extradition confinement are germane to the purposes of the law proceedings even more. Yet.in which the main topic was Mr. Jimenez. Giving premium to delay by hearing not only petitioner’s application for an arrest considering it as a special circumstance for the grant of warrant. a remand will not serve any useful purpose. this fact cannot be taken to mean that he will not including his detention pending the final resolution of the flee as the process moves forward to its conclusion. unduly delay the proceedings. it has patiently heard them in Oral Arguments. In short. then position papers on the application for bail. we as he hears the footsteps of the requesting are constrained to rule against his claim that his election government inching closer and closer. and apply to all those belonging to the same class. Remanding the case will not solve this utter lack of persuasion and strength in his legal reasoning. Separate and Dissenting Opinions written by the learned justices themselves -has exhaustively deliberated and carefully passed upon all relevant questions in this case. Respondent Jimenez further contends that because the extradition proceedings are lengthy. Brief Refutation of Dissents We are not overruling the possibility that petitioner may. any cop-out. it lies in his legal arguments. determine guilt or innocence. he has not fled requesting his extradition. Evidently. his constituents were the country. Moreover. opportunity both by the trial court and this Court to However. as a rule. To ran for and won a congressional seat in Manila. mean that he will stand his ground and still be within 2. the lengthy Memoranda and the Position Papers of both parties. Hence. What we need now is prudent and deliberate speed. he stresses that he learned of the already of public knowledge that the United States was extradition request in June 1999. Thus. which may be granted in accordance with the intended to address issues relevant to the constitutional guidelines in this Decision.as shown by this Decision and the spirited Concurring. yet. the parties -.have bombarded this Court with additional pleadings -. case. A remand would mean that this long. Not a Flight Risk? It must be noted that even before private respondent Jimenez further claims that he is not a flight risk.in particular. but also private respondent’s prayer for bail would be tantamount to giving him the power to temporary liberty. not to continue hearing evidence on the application for bail. This Court has meticulously pored over the Petition. As already stated. Respondent further discussion of this point would be merely Jimenez -. we believe. this Court -. the Comment. both of which were separately filed by the parties. We must emphasize that extradition applicant has been taken into custody and prior to cases are summary in nature.”[73] 3. rights available to the accused in a criminal action. Again we and granted by the trial court at anytime after the are not convinced. The proposal to remand this case to the extradition in bad faith. They are resorted to judgment. Additionally. with all the more reason would the grant of claim to bail. This we cannot allow. the extradition court may its annexes conform to the Extradition Treaty. the inadequacy lies not in the factual presentation of Mr. even after bail has been previously merely to determine whether the extradition petition and denied. True. Premises considered and in line with Jalosjos. it was support this claim. Thus. Rather.entitled “Manifestations” by both parties and “Counter-Manifestation” by private respondent -. even he realizes that there is absolutely no need to rehear factual matters. not unnecessary and convoluted delay. in fact. delays and be heard. Worse. Having once escaped the jurisdiction of the requesting state. A subsequent opportunity is sufficient due technicalities that may negate that purpose. whether it complies with the Extradition Treaty and Law. Immediately upon receipt of the petition for extradition and its supporting documents. The bail bond . Indeed. they have the burden of proceedings become not only inutile but also sources showing that (a) there is no flight risk and no danger of international embarrassment due to our inability to to the community. as well as in the ability and the willingness of the latter to grant basic rights to the accused in the pending criminal case therein. this Decision has taken special cognizance of the rights to due process and fundamental fairness of potential extraditees. By nature then. supported by its annexes and the evidence that may be adduced during the hearing of the petition. The hearings on the petition and the answer is the full assailed RTC Order dated May 23. the reasonable prima facie presumption is that the person would escape again if given the opportunity. By entering into an extradition treaty. so that the criminal process may proceed therein. conducted with all deliberate speed to determine compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law. Suffice it to say that. In extradition cases.the merits. the Petition is GRANTED. We realize that extradition is essentially an executive. but also unfair. it is now time to summarize and stress these ten points: 1. frustrate. The proceedings are intended merely to assist the requesting state in bringing the accused -. Consequently. 7. it is subject to judicial discretion in the 10. to due process and to fundamental fairness. an extradition case is not one in which the constitutional rights of the accused are necessarily available.” We believe that this charge is not only baseless. 9. not a circuitous cop-out. available during the WHEREFORE. Due process does not always call for a prior opportunity to avoid the legalistic contortions. responsibility arising out of the presidential power to conduct foreign relations and to implement treaties. 6. bail is not a bilateral justice and international cooperation. Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to and. a bastion of liberty. and escapees can unreasonably delay. in its length and breath. courts merely perform oversight functions and exercise review authority to prevent or excise grave abuse and tyranny. extradition proceedings should be context of the peculiar facts of each case. 2001 is hereby chance to be heard and to enjoy fundamental fairness declared NULL and VOID. comply in good faith with a treaty partner’s simple humanitarian or compelling circumstances. 2. But it is also well aware of the limitations of its authority and of the need for respect for the prerogatives of the other co-equal and co-independent organs of government. under the principle of reciprocity as a special mock. The request to return a fugitive. complies with the Extradition Treaty and Law. It is more akin. there is also the suggestion that this Court is allegedly “disregarding basic freedoms when a case is one of extradition. matter of right. to a court’s request to police authorities for the arrest of the accused who is at large or has escaped detention or jumped bail. Thus. to the flight risk involved. our country should grounds used by the highest court in the requesting not be converted into a dubious haven where fugitives state for the grant of bail therein may be considered. the Executive Department of government has broad discretion in its duty and power of implementation. At bottom. Then. the Philippines is deemed to have reposed its trust in the reliability or soundness of the legal and judicial system of its treaty partner. and whether the person sought is extraditable. and (b) there exist special. a bulwark of democracy and the conscience of society.back to its territory. The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings is to determine whether the request expressed in the petition. checkmate and defeat the quest for circumstance. or to personally examine the affiants or witnesses. 2001 is SET ASIDE insofar as it granted extradition. Summation As we draw to a close. delays and “over-due process” every little step of the way. lest these summary extradition may apply for bail. 8. and whether the person sought is extraditable. On the other hand. They should not 5. if at all. while the challenged Order that is compatible with the summary nature of dated July 3. not a judicial. After being taken into custody. the judge shall make a prima facie finding whether the petition is sufficient in form and substance. bail to Respondent Mark Jimenez. If convinced that a prima facie case exists. while safeguarding basic individual rights. Since the applicants have a history of absconding. The magistrate has discretion to require the petitioner to submit further documentation. 4. 3. the judge immediately issues a warrant for the arrest of the potential extraditee and summons him or her to answer and to appear at scheduled hearings on the petition.or the fugitive who has illegally escaped -. This Court will always remain a protector of human rights. extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal case in which guilt or innocence is determined. potential extraditees allow contortions. mummify. pp. Purganan. 1995. JJ. Dissenting were Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.. [6] Signed on November 13. Buena. [5] 322 SCRA 160. da Costa of Poblador Bautista and Reyes. Sandoval-Gutierrez. January 18. [11] Annex M of the Petition. the Court asked the parties to discuss three issues: 1) the propriety of the filing of the Petition in this case before this . joins in the concurring opinion of Justice Carpio. Reyes. Flores. p.J. Austria-Martinez. with all deliberate speed pursuant to the spirit and the letter of our Extradition Treaty with the United States as well as our Extradition Law.. Mendoza. [14] Petition. Rollo. [2] Id. Bernardo P. [3] Presided by Judge Guillermo G. Melo. [10] Annex E of the Petition. [8] The 40-page Decision (322 SCRA 160. October 17. 2000). with Justices Melo and Santiago writing separate Dissents (343 SCRA 377. and Carpio-Morales. Puno. concur in the separate opinion of Bellosillo. concur. 2001.. No costs. Fidel P. Rollo. The Regional Trial Court of Manila is directed to conduct the extradition proceedings before it. and Justices Mendoza. Sr. October 17. 125. 122-125. Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Sabino R. C. Nick Emmanuel C.. Arturo B. Earlier. Artemio V. 2000) was penned by Justice Jose A. pp. J. Davide. 10-11. Kapunan. Corona. Jr. 2001 was private respondent’s Memorandum signed by Attys. Pardo. Pardo and Minerva P. Vicente V.. Bellosillo. J. see Dissenting Opinion. pp... Quisumbing. Reyes and De Leon Jr. Panganiban. J. de Leon Jr. and concurred in by the Philippine Senate on November 29. 2001. Jose C. join in the Separate Opinion of Justice Ynares-Santiago. and Callejo. Gutierrez and State Counsel Claro B. Purisima. with Justices Puno and Panganiban writing separate Dissents. see Separate Opinion. Vitug. Purisima. [1] Rollo. [15] During the Oral Argument on August 14. Vitug. [12] Annex O (certified true xerox copy) of the Petition. 2000. Leonardo A. 74. J. Ynares-Santiago. SO ORDERED. R. see Dissenting Opinion. J. Puno. Santiago M... [7] In Civil Case No. Mendoza. on September 3. and Justices Reynato S. Quisumbing.. Carpio. J. Kapunan. Mario Luza Bautista. p. J. see Separate Opinion. and 343 SCRA 377. 1994. upon receipt by this Court of respondent’s Counter-Manifestation. [13] The case was deemed submitted for resolution on July 3. 2001.. 4. 2000. Filed on August 23. Panganiban. 9-10. 99-94684. Melo with the concurrence of Justices Josue N. Merceditas N. Vitug. Quisumbing. [4] Order dated July 3. January 18. Villaluz and Brigette M. 2002. see concurring Opinion. Justice Puno. this Court received petitioner’s Memorandum signed by Undersecretary Ma.. Buena and Santiago. p. Dissenting were Justices Bellosillo. [9] Penned by Justice Puno and concurred in by Chief Justice Davide.posted by private respondent is CANCELLED.. February 28.68. Limjap. 1976. Concepcion. p. the Court defined fugitive from justice as one who flees after conviction to avoid punishment or who. 44 Phil. July 9. 37. October 18. per Fernan. 1971 ed. 2001. Salaysay v. 111 SCRA 215. Court of Appeals. 3-4. per Martinez. pp. Comelec (259 SCRA 296. per Davide. J. 217 SCRA 633. citing 221 U. 292 SCRA 202. 2001. 4. 67. CJ. 1993. September 21.. 1995 ed. [23] 190 SCRA 31. Vasquez. January 27. April 18. People v. 141. Branch 47. September 30. supra. Manila Lodge No. p. Cloribel. [34] Coquia. 1982. 73 SCRA 162. GR No. 1998. 546. Air Lines. 4. v. January 31. July 16. v. Roldan v. International Extradition. Inc. Defensor-Santiago v. 56 Phil. October 17. [22] 289 SCRA 624. citing cases. Villaroman.Court. 1937. Castro. 1931. CA-GR SP No. Manalo v. 172 SCRA 415. July 24. Court of Appeals. 98 Phil. Rollo. citing People v. Eustaquio. September 24. [17] Government of the United States of America. CJ. 103 Phil. GR No. January 30.. January 22. 142801-802. per Puno. represented by the Philippine Department of Justice v. September 1. promulgated on May 7. July 10. [21] Malonzo v. 64 Phil. flees to avoid prosecution. p. pp. 236 SCRA 130. 2000. November 29. 1999. 3. 69 Phil. Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. 512 (1910). Statutory Construction. Gloria. [25] Agpalo. 347 SCRA 128. [16] Petition. [30] Bassiouni. Mark Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance of a warrant for his arrest. 364. 1999. 392. 446. . supra. 1051. p. 232. 38. [19] Phil. 1994. [20] Progressive Development Corporation. [24] Philippine National Bank v. 1922. August 31. 12. [35] See Bassiouni. Zamora. 1957. 1987 ed. after being charged. 1939. 761 v. p. December 6. p.. Torres v. April 24. Air Lines Employees Association v. p. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources. Cuaresma. Cuenco. and Nelson Marquez. 1956. [31] Id. [27] See “Whereas” clause of PD 1069 and preamble of the RP-US Extradition Treaty. [26] Last “Whereas” clause of PD 1069. [18] Petition. The Regional Trial Court of Manila.” The Lawyers Review. 219. 137718. 1972. Phil. J. July 27. 61079. [33] Supra. [32] Shearer.. 19-20. 1996). “On Implementation of the US-RP Extradition Treaty. Extradition in International Law. Tanada v. citing Macondray & Co. 508. 301 SCRA 637. 4-5. See also Cruz v. 1999. 126. Rollo. Inc. [28] Bassiouni. 2000. 44 SCRA 307 April 11.. 2000. 21. and 3) whether the procedure followed by respondent judge in issuing the warrant of arrest and granting bail was correct. 1990. 2) whether Mr. [29] In Rodriguez v.S. p. Sayo Jr. Zamora. citing Central Bank v. pp. 1999. p. – All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right. October 9. or released on recognizance . 2002. 157. not probable cause. Manifestation dated June 5. 680. 2002.. 233 SCRA 192. J. [57] IbId. citing 1 L. 1955). J. 407 (Summer. 2001. 2001 ( Rollo. Nevada: “In the Matter of the Extradition of Charlie Atong Ang. [54] 280 SCRA 365. Blair.[36] Supra. [59] “SEC. 2d 767. in its Order dated May 23. supra. International Law. Petition for Certiorari. [44] See footnote no. per petitioner’s Manifestation dated June 5. 1903. Lantion. 447. p. a fugitive from the country of the Philippines. Extradition in International Law. [38] Shearer. it already set for hearing the issuance of the warrant of arrest. [53] Bassiouni. [47] 39 CJS 875. 125). 74). [50] Order dated July 3. 55 S. Lantion.” 34 Stan. 1971 ed. [46] Ibid. 2-3. International Extradition. [49] Petition for Extradition. [48] Id. p. May 5. Rollo pp. Rollo p. Int’l L. p. p. Diokno. [58] Prima facie finding. 19. Rodgers.. 1998). 40. 545. citing Independent Life Ins. [51] In the questioned July 3. 394. citing Allado v. 33 NYS 2d 183. 62. [56] 247 SCRA 652.. [43] Wright v. Oppenheim. 49-50.” [the court] has denied Mr. “International Extradition and the Right to Bail. 4. [52] See §9. [42] Secretary of Justice v. [41] The United States District Court. 2001. 2d 820. 190 U.. 821. Rollo. p. [40] In line with the Philippine policy of cooperation and amity with all nations set forth in Article II. 3. PD 1069. 2001 Order (p. respondent judge admitted that the Annexes of the Petition for Extradition had been received by the court a quo on May 25. 188 Okl. citing People v. 124. p. 1994. Ang’s motion for bail. per Panganiban.. J. p. 165 Tenn. supra.S. [39] Id. pp. with sufficient sureties. 381. 41. Rollo. per Puno. Amerada Petroleum Corporation v. 87. Section 2. 952-53. [37] Secretary of Justice v. Constitution. exception. Las Vegas. Bail. 190. p.W. v. 191. (8th ed. 4. Henkel. Co. yet. [45] Persily. March 23. a matter of right. pp.. supra. 18. 109 P. Hester. 1997. [55] Id. is the more precise terminology because an extradition case is not a criminal proceeding in which the latter phrase is commonly used. District of Nevada. “On the Implementation of the US-RP Extradition Treaty. March 11. the Requested State may surrender the person as expeditiously as possible without further proceedings. April 6. [71] Private respondent argues that the following cases -.should be treated as examples of special circumstances. VII. 1993. Paat v. citing Kelso v. United States of America. 1977 -. however. February 3. November 18. 220 SCRA 536.” [68] §1. Rep. Enage. 1996. Court of Appeals. [62] Paretti v. February 27. 6. June 30. Constitution. NLRC. 1977. Hartigan. GR No. 758. or Municipal Circuit Trial Court. 1997 and 158 F. 41 SCRA 1. per Ynares-Santiago. 2000. they are not applicable to this case due to factual differences. [67] It states: “If the person sought consents in writing to surrender to the Requesting State. 106 F. [69] §5. . 700-702. [73] Id. more than three years later. October 9. 171 F. [66] Coquia. 2d 1. Art. Constitution. 98. May 6. March 20. 1998. the Petition for Extradition is still languishing in the trial court. pp. Art. Art.. 110494. Hence we refrain from ruling on this argument of Jimenez. Municipal Trial Court in Cities. September 17. Brennan and Artt. 3d. See also Busuego v. In our view. 1997. Constitutional Law. J. to date. and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death. Cruz. 915. 291 [DDC 1998]. [61] §18. [72] 324 SCRA 689. 460 F. Constitution. [64] See Central Bank of the Philippines v. p. 122 F. Kirby. Beaulieu v.In re Michell. Municipal Trial Court. Supp. 855. 1997. reclusion perpetua. [70] I. March 14. VIII. VIII. [74] The US request for extradition was dated June 16. [65] Ibid. 462.A. and 554 F. January 10. and yet. Court of Appeals. [63] Garcia v. 304 SCRA 473. US Department of State. United States v. or life imprisonment.. Court of Appeals. 3d. per Fernando.” supra. 289. 3d. 1999.as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court. 1999. J. 1998 ed. 1909. (later CJ).” [60] De la Camara v. 13 F Supp. 1971. or conditional pardon. to bailable (Rule 114) (b) That he has previously escaped from legal Sec. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal. Should the court grant the application. If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years. reclusion perpetua. or (e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal. or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification. However. 5. or life imprisonment. of the following or other similar circumstances: (a) That he is a recidivist. motu proprio or on motion of any party. (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail. review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either case. . if the decision of the trial court conviction the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable. admission to bail is discretionary. evaded sentence. Effect if offense changed from non-bailable aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration. The appellate court may. confinement. or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution. parole. or habitual delinquent. provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court. when discretionary. with notice to the accuse. the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman. Bail.1. or has committed the crime B. quasi-recidivist.Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death. the accused shall be denied bail. – (c) That he committed the offense while under probation. the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court. respondent 3. 170 SCRA 489Cebu with a copy thereof. an Information for Murder with the of this Honorable Court to: qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident 1. NULL AND VOID and thus praying.' filed a motion for bail. DACUDAO. constitute the essential evidence (so far) of the prosecution in this The Solicitor General for petitioner. CBU-11463. Standards for fixing bail 4. case. '3. Christopher Paclibar and set it aside for being null and void. Bantayan (Cebu) Police Station. The question presented for resolution in this for certiorari and prohibition is whether or prosecution was deprived of procedural due on account of the grant of bail to the accused any hearing on the motion for bail.R. petition Monteclar filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that not the "THE GRANTING OF BAIL TO THE ACCUSED WITHOUT process A HEARING IS VIOLATIVE OF PROCEDURAL DUE without PROCESS. C. Florida and to this end hereby fixes the Bernardito A. accused Rey Christopher Paclibar entered bail.the following Order: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. respondents. No. Dacudao. 1989 in the application for bail. Acting on the motion for reconsideration and the opposition People v. respondent Judge summarily issued ORDER . J.000. On August 11. 81389 February 21. Bernardito A. Reconsider premeditation was filed before the Regional Trial Court of its order dated 29th September l987 granting bail to the accused Cebu.: SO ORDERED. GUTIERREZ. 1987. JR. Branch XIV. WHEREFORE. 1987. andthe complaint at bar and the sworn statement of Patrolman Elpidio Desquitado.. Dacudao. which DESAMPARADO alias WALDAS. private prosecutor Alex R. furnishing the Provincial Fiscal of 5. To recommit the accused to jail (CPDRC) immediately until such 2. it is respectfully prayed 1. 2. whetherUpon the evidence for the prosecution would warrant the denial of arraignment. 1987 the following order: G. bailbond for the accused Rey Christopher Paclibar at P50. Florido for private respondents. as follows: The facts have been summarized as follows. this Court hereby resolves to grant the motion for bail presented by Atty. accused Rey Christopher time Paclibar the Honorable Court shall have resolved the Motion to Bail. Presiding Judge Considering of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. against accused Rey Christopher Paclibar and Nero Desamparado for the death of Cesarlito Nolasco. On September 29. in the light of the foregoing. HENCE. RENATO C. To The order casethe immediate hearing of the Motion to Bail to determine was docketed as Criminal Case No. vs. and without conducting a hearing judge issued on November 20.00. 1987. Branch XIV. presided by respondent Judge RenatoRey C. thereto filed by accused Rey Christopher Paclibar. a plea of 'not guilty' to the offense charged. petitioner. the motion for bail and the opposition thereto. On September 18. and. Tadeo Abello and Romeo Torrizo all of the NERO DESAMPARADO alias TOTO Integrated National Police. From the foregoing Order. on the basis of and REY CHRISTOPHER PACLIBAR. ORDER HON. the Provincial Fiscal The question presented before us is. the Court sees no reason to reconsider order of September 29. in People v. The court grantedThe on the sole basis of the complaint and the affidavits of cember 16. having been issued in s order within which to submit a pleading or motion for asking for it. granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the only for prima facie determining whether or not evidence there for the prosecution followed by its conclusion O ORDERED. Amado Olis are all by the prosecution. (at p. In the interest of offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course a speedy determination of the case. Whatever the court possessed might the time it issued the questioned ruling was intended otify the bondsman of the accused. none of whom. The accused is similarly notified. The orders of the 7. however. We are of the considered opinion that whether the private prosecutor with the conformity of one of the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital Assistant Provincial Fiscals of Cebu. for its conformity or comment. not one of whom apparently onteclar and Bernardito Florida as well as Atty. within a reasonable time.he Court hereby resolves to hold in abeyance its resolution on the osecution's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order dated ptember 29.motion with for bail. Whether or not "Respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction and with are defective in form and substance because they do not grave abuse of discretion in refusing to recommit the the evidence of guilt is strong for each individual contain a summary of the evidence presented by the the accused Rey Christopher Paclibar to jail during the accused still has to be established unlessprosecution. all the evidence that it Solicitor General whom we asked to comment.of and a regular trial the prosecution must be given an opportunity considering the stand taken by the Office ofto the present. At the very least. as it turned andout void. To appreciate the strength Petition) andorsubstance. it would be uncontrolled and at be capricious or whimsical. San Diego (26 SCRA 522 appears in criminal cases or their incidents before the [1968]). as in the criminal case involved in the a warning to the private prosecutor and the Assistant instant special civil action. the Solicitor General who Thus. Tadeo bello and Romeo Torrizo of the INP. whether the prosecution himself." (p. the orders complained of cannot. and. Being thus defective in form already presented. granting bail to the five defendants The petitioner now advances the following issue: that that the crime was committed and pinpointingOctober persons who probably committed it. due process. Bantayan. be allowed to stand. we must stress that a private must be consulted or heard. the court's order tified of this order in open court. their own account. 1987 granting bail to the accused. 6. bailcourt's discretion to grant bail in capital offenses must be the meantime reset the continuation of the hearing of this case on later. Government's counsel. It is equally entitled as the prosecutor in a criminal case has no authority to act for accused to due process. and that therefore the accused should t have been admitted to bail. 9 and 12. witnessed the killing.M. Hence. 1987 at 2:30 P. was deprived of procedural due process. It is the the presentation of evidence and reasonable opportunity . without bothering to ask the prosecution violation of procedural due process. 524. over its strong objections. otherwise. in support of its proposition that the evidence of guilt against e accused in this case is strong. Rollo) is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded whether belief of not the evidence of guilt is strong. this Court. 1968. as this evidence nsists simply of the sworn statement of Pat.' (pp. If. which it promised to esent. They only contain the court's conclusion that the has pendency of the hearing of the motion to bail. Cebu. 95-98. held: Supreme Court. there would be a violation of procedural future. with the conformity of the Solicitor General. 1968. pending the esentation by the Prosecution of evidence. Attys. Alex exercised in the light of a summary of the evidence presented three policemen. the prosecution ground. must be considered null consideration of the ruling of the Court. Fiscal Napoleon Alburo. we may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the have decided to resolve this petition on its merits. instead of the affirmative. prosecution submits the issue on whatever itevidence of guilt is not strong. and the order of the court granting bail should be The respondent court acted irregularly in grantingconsidered bail void on that ground. The orders complained of he Court hereby gives the prosecution five (5) days from receipt of in a murder case without any hearing on the motion dated October 7. Certain guidelines in the fixing of a bailbond call for the People of the Philippines before this Court. the prosecution should be denied Provincial Fiscal to follow the correct procedure such in thean opportunity. witnesses (sic) the slaying of the deceased Lito olasco by the accused Rey Christopher Paclibar. The answer is in the should have raised the issue before us. 9 and 12. Unless and until the prosecution duces the requisite evidence. Emphasis supplied) Before resolving this issue. also on this weakness of the evidence of guilt. 1987 which was predicated upon the stulate that the Prosecution evidence thus far attached to the records es not make out a very strong case for murder. Desquitado. III. Rule 144. 156 SCRA 529 [1987]) However. RESOLUTION Finally. concur. and the recommended rules in the grant of the application for bail.for the prosecution to refute it. is punishable by reclusion perpetua. This is erroneous because although the Constitution states that the death penalty may not be imposed unless a law orders its imposition for heinous crimes (Constitution. JJ." WHEREFORE. Aparri. Sec. Bidin and Cortes. Catral. (Section 6. Cagayan. Thus. The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration should first be availed of before a petition for certiorari and prohibition is filed. v. and whether or not the accused is under bond in other cases." Bail is not a matter of right as regards persons charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence of guilt is strong. It contends that certiorari will not lie unless the inferior court has. In the case at bar. in the case of Gaspar v. September 10. 1987 [A. whether or not the accused is a fugitive from justice. Sandiganbayan (144 SCRA 415 [1986]). (pp. vs. Moreover. it was already an Information for murder. speedy. Matter RTJ-97-1387 September 10. The defense counsel insists that the accused should be entitled to bail considering the abolition of the death penalty in the 1986 Constitution. He advances the argument that due to the abolition of the death penalty. Rules of Court) It is highly doubtful if the trial court can appreciate these guidelines in an ex-parte determination where the Fiscal is neither present nor heard. The order granting bail is SET ASIDE and the accused is ordered recommitted to jail pending the hearing on the bail application.. which is murder. 60. The case at bar.J. 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a hearing before resolving a motion for bail by persons charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua where the prosecution may discharge its burden of showing that the evidence of guilt is strong. the weight of the evidence against him. Inc. The amendment or changing of an information prior to the plea of the accused is allowed there being no prejudice to him. the defense contends that the Judge did not commit any error because actually the complaint in ROMERO. this Court held that. p. Sec.. however. 5. Section 19 [1]. the petitioner is left with no plain. We note. complainant. that when the same was filed with the Regional Trial Court. The effort of the court to remedy the situation by conducting the required hearing after ordering the release of the accused may be a face-saving device for the Judge but it cannot serve the purpose of validating the void order granting bail and stamping an imprimatur of approval on a clearly irregular procedure. 111. Branch 7. "no actual double jeopardy exists where the petitioner had not yet pleaded guilty to the offense. Rollo). threatening and coercing witnesses who are now afraid to testify. Rollo) Information was also for homicide (Annex B. Art. Thus. murder is no longer a capital offense being no longer punishable with death. Feliciano. respondent. 279 SCRA 1 (1997) Adm. SO ORDERED. No. In Art. Among them are the nature and circumstances of the crime. 1997] FLAVIANO B. Regional Trial Court. the petition is hereby GRANTED. Fernan C. J. A motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with in cases like this where execution has been ordered and the need for relief is extremely urgent (Phil. . "capital offenses" is replaced by the phrase "offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua. CATRAL. p. the opportunity to correct the errors imputed to it. Ople. 87-88. it does not follow that all persons accused of any crime whatsoever now have an absolute right to bail. Art. there is an allegation that the accused is harassing. should be dismissed. 61. this rule does not apply when special circumstances warrant immediate or more direct action. British Assurance Co. the probability of the accused appearing at the trial.: the Municipal Circuit Trial Court is for homicide only Once again.M. (Cebu Institute of Technology [CIT] v. RTJ-97-1387. In its comment. Cortes vs. CORTES.. JUDGE SEGUNDO B. the Court is asked to elucidate on the (Annex A. 13 of the Constitution. Rollo). 150 SCRA 520 [1989]). and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law considering that the respondent court insists on the continuation of the hearing of the criminal case even while the accused is free to roam around. character and reputation of the accused. through a motion for reconsideration. Intermediate Appellate Court. the defense interposes an objection to the petition on the ground that it is premature and therefore. he is holding it in designated as presiding judge. Cagayan with Gross Ignorance of the Law committed as follows: In his comment dated August 16. Bulseco.800.00 as bailbond for each of the accused. 874[3] for murder pending in prosecutor was P180.000. Accused. if the possession of firearm against Barangay Captain P180.A sworn letter complaint was filed by Flaviano Cortes charging Judge Segundo B. in unbailable.. Virgilio Alameda. Another Barangay Captain Nilo de Rivera with a sound discretion of the court. The worst part of it – no et al.000. filed a motion for reduction of because according to his clerks. Judge Roger Domagas.” [6] A These two cases are like the case of Teresita Q. Flaviano Cortes by manipulating him like a robot and letting him loose like a mad dog barking on the wrong tree and biting everybody including the other members of the bench. Respondent further laments that “a ‘ghost lawyer’ is taking advantage of the notoriety of Mr. the fiscal opted not to introduce evidence and recommended bail in the sum of P200.000. 07-893 granted bail to the accused without conducting any 2. Rodrigo Bumanglag. the inquest judge issued a (OIC) as contained in his manifestation accompanying appealed and it was elevated to the RTC Branch 08.000.00 Dicierto was sued for concubinage and convicted by In the case of People v. Jimmy Siriban Case 08-866 for murder. 4. Respondent judge “acting on the said recommendation “1. When the case was elevated to the the recommendation of the OIC provincial prosecutor acquitted Jimmy Siriban. 1996.000. respondent judge branded the complainant as a “self anointed concern (sic) citizen” of Aparri. 11-6250 for Illegal frustrated homicide pending in Branch 7 of the Possession of Firearm was raffled and assigned to his Regional Trial Court of Aparri where the presiding As regards the third charge concerning the illegal sala.”[5] respondent judge says that the bailbond of P14. through hearing has been made from 1995 to the present Branch 7 of the RTC where respondent was then counsel Atty.00.000. whenever required.00 but it was reduced by Judge Segundo complainant is referring to Ahmed Duerme y Paypon. in a motion for reduction of bailbond. 1995. rumors in Aparri spread that Regional Trial Court upon information filed by the and mindful of the guidelines in fixing a reasonable the wife of Judge Segundo Catral went to Jimmy provincial prosecutor.”[8] too low. People v. Rodrigo Bumanglag. Barangay Captain Rodolfo is the case of People v. Catral of the RTC of Aparri. Jimmy Siriban the right hand man of Julio ‘Bong’ from P200. Cagayan who has gained notoriety as a character assassinator.. 1996 addressed to the classified as heinous crimes there (sic) are supposedly provincial prosecutor Romeo Sacquing was presented With regard to the first charge. 07-893 for Administrative Circular 12-94 in conjunction with the murder and People v.[9] Respondent judge then “acting on sala of Judge Segundo Catral. In Criminal Case No. the information made no amount of bailbond coupled by the fact that the Siriban’s house to get the envelop. 08-866 for murder recommendation of Prosecutor Apolinar Carrao. The motion for reduction of who has a pending murder case. Criminal Case No. et al.”[1] . Judge Segundo Catral recommended.00. Willie Bumanglag y Magno for hearing. court.00 instead. bailbond was submitted without serious opposition and the prosecutor “mindful perhaps that there is no corpus the resolution of the motion was submitted to the 3. clarified that Criminal Case No. the bailbond recommended by the Catral for only P30. On May 3. by the respondent to disprove the accusation that he his comment. The provincial prosecutor granted a bailbond of judge is Hon. a public nuisance and most often called speaker for hire during election time. This Barangay Captain Rodolfo Castaneda that the provincial prosecutor recommended P and guaranteed the appearance of the accused in is one of the goons of Julio ‘Bong’ Decierto his nephew 200. Criminal Case No.”[2] mention of a bailbond.00 to P50. Criminal evidence extant on the record approved the Case No.00.000. 08-915 concerning a homicide 94[4] issued an order for reduction of the bailbond case against Barangay Captain Nilo de Rivero. Counsel even vouched abeyance. The amount is circumstantial evidence and guided by the factors same to the discretion of the court. the warrant of arrest for the accused with no bail the information. Tucay duplicate copy of trial prosecutor Apolinar Carrao’s v. Rodolfo Castaneda. “mindful of of the crime as no firearm was caught or taken from homicide case was granted with a bailbond of the fact that the prosecution is banking on weak the possession of the accused merely submitted the P14. The court.800. 242 SCRA 110 being letter dated September 3.00. In the hearing of the petition to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.[7] Castaneda’s Criminal Case No. It is because this Nilo de Rivera is another prescribed in Section 9 of Administrative Circular 12goon of Julio Bong Decierto. Duerme. However. respondent stresses the bailbond to P30. He granted bail in murder cases without hearing: and again guided by the provision of Section 9.00 by Judge Segundo Catral. respondent judge. Criminal was recommended by the acting Officer-In-Charge Judge Herminio del Castillo in MTC.000. Subsequently. the actions taken by the respondent were in the exercise of judicial discretion that may not be assailed in an administrative proceedings (sic). in his order dated August 16. Bail is the security required by the court and given by the accused to ensure that the accused appears before the proper court at the scheduled time and place to answer the charges brought against him or her.evidence on record is merely circumstantial and there was no eyewitness to the commission of crime granted bailbond in the sum of P14. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.[13] When a person is charged with an offense punishable by death. referred to in the letter complainant (sic) of Mr. the Office of the Court Administrator character and reputation. [11] Respondent judge stresses that. has already been dismissed by Judge Virgilio Alameda.”[10] Finally. without having respondent judge. “A summary hearing means such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of hearing which is merely to determine the weight of evidence for purposes of bail. et noted. reasonable notice of hearing is required to Respondent judge. the court does not sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence for or against the accused. shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal action. On September 9. It should be noted further that the reduction in the amount of bail of the accused in the criminal cases in question were all done by the respondent with the knowledge and conformity of the Public Prosecutor concerned. In his original comment. Moreover.00. not only to take into account the guidelines set forth in Section 9. whether bail is a matter of right or of and cross examination. 1996 informing the Office of the Court Administrator that Criminal Case No. among others. Respondent judge noted that the complaining witnesses never appeared despite the fact that the case had been set for hearing several times. against the accused. but primarily to determine the existence of strong evidence of guilt or lack of it.. x x x it is crystal clear that the increase or reduction of bail rests in the sound discretion of the court depending upon the particular circumstances of the case. that the evidence against the accused in Criminal Case No. Branch 07. 07-874 was based on weak circumstantial evidence which prompted the court to grant them a reduced bailbond of P50. Rule 114. respondent submitted his additional comment dated September 5. “x x x complainant failed to show any indication al. and to enable him to prepare his defense without being subject to punishment prior to conviction. Aparri Cagayan.”[12] We do not agree. 1996.”[16] the allegations of the complainant that would warrant discretion. the judge is required to take into In recommending the dismissal of the complaint against guilt against the accused is strong.[15] . or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when the evidence of guilt is strong. as can be gleaned from the penultimate paragraph of said order. It is awarded to the accused to honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Section 7 of the Rules of Court states: “No person charged with a capital offense. nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further Bail should be fixed according to the circumstances of evidence may be therein offered or admitted. the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended the provision that bail should not be excessive. respondent judge says the accusation regarding the acquittal of one Jimmy Siriban is simply the product of a dirty imagination and is a dirty trick intended to defame the name of his family by rumor mongers who are unwilling to come out in the open to substantiate their accusation. [14] avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in the examination dismissal of the complaint saying that there is nothing in Therefore. bail is a matter of discretion. Ahmed Duerme y Paypon.000.800. respondent stated. account a number of factors such as the applicant’s respondent judge. The amount fixed should be sufficient to course of inquiry may be left to the discretion of the ensure the presence of the accused at the trial yet court which may confine itself to receiving such reasonable enough to comply with the constitutional evidence as has reference to substantial matters. Flaviano Cortes. the accused. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. when the accused is charged with an offense punishable by death. remained detention prisoners because of their failure to post bond. The each case. 1996. in two instances. granted bail to an the imposition of administrative sanction against be given to the prosecutor or fiscal or at least he must accused charged with murder.00. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Criminal Case No. RTC.” Consequently. forfeiture of other bonds or In the case of People v. be asked for his recommendation because in fixing conducted any hearing as to whether the evidence of the amount of bail. 874. that bad faith motivated the actuation of the respondent in granting and reducing the amount of bail of the accused in some of the criminal cases that were assigned in his sala. accused Ahmed Duerme whether he is a fugitive from justice. On such hearing. 07-784. whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court. despite reduction of their bailbonds. disclosed that the prosecution was banking on weak circumstantial evidence since there was no eyewitness to the commission of the offense as borne out from the affidavits and sworn statements of the prosecution witnesses. Respondent judge. to prove the evidence of guilt of the Regional Trial Court. would it be Trial Court of Sta.00 as bail for the accused. the fiscal opted not to introduce evidence and recommended the sum of P200. to the sound discretion of discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be the court instead. 08-866. The “hearing” of the motion was conducted on August 21. however. evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing.[20] The order granting the reduced bailbond. not having interposed any opposition. Rodrigo Bumanlag. accused through counsel candidly admitted in open court that in his honest . stating that “acting on this recommendation of the provincial prosecutor and taking into account the guidelines prescribed in Section 9 of Administrative Circular 12-94. did not contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. as well as the reduced bail bond of P50.00 instead. 08-866. Administrative Circular 12-94 in conjunction with the evidence extant on record. then “guided by the factual setting and the supporting evidence extant on record”[25] reduced the bail bond from P200.000. but the public evidence and since evidence cannot properly be prosecutor opted not to introduce evidence and weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the submitted the resolution of the petition. there were no recommended. Rapatalo.00. the public prosecutor manifested that he had no objection to the sum of P50. as well as the court.”[19] Respondent judge.000.[24] In the course of the hearing of the petition.[27] this court ruled that “x x x the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where the prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave the application of bail to the sound discretion of the court.00 for the provisional liberty of each of the accused.” The reason for this is plain. the petitioner having the right of In the case of People v.00 as recommended by the prosecutor.000. view.[23] Unable to post the said bond. The provincial prosecutor recommended the sum of P200. Inasmuch as the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong is a matter of judicial discretion.000. a hearing was actually conducted on the application Since the discretion is directed to the weight of and motion for reduction of bail. 1995 with the prosecution. Respondent judge then issued an order granting a reduced bailbond of P50.00 to P50.together with four other persons were charged with the crime of murder. it is still mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or ask searching questions from which it may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt. the court issued a warrant of arrest and fixed the amount of P200. the information made no mention accused for the crime of murder when the prosecutor eyewitnesses to the commission of the offense as borne out from the affidavits and sworn statements of of a bailbond. A hearing is likewise required if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fix bail.000. did not contain a summary of the evidence presented by the prosecution.[17] The records do not reveal whether a hearing was actually conducted on the application for bail although respondent judge implies that there was one. After conducting a procedurally proper for the court to compel prosecutor Respondent judge justifies the grant of bail in the two preliminary investigation. accused Bumanglag was charge with of criminal cases is under the direct control and own rebuttal.”[18] Subsequently. the strength of evidence on hand for the state can only prove the crime of homicide and not murder?[26] In the recent case of Inocencio Basco v. and submitting the resolution of the motion to the sound discretion of the court instead. Consequently. the inquest judge issued a Apolinar Carrao. the order granting the bail of P200.[28] it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial motion for reduction of bail. Criminal is a basic principle of procedure that the prosecution cross examination and to introduce evidence in his Case No. In the hearing of the petition to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused was strong.00.000. Ahmed Duerme. Respondent also added that in the case warrant of the arrest for the accused with no bail case of People v. Criminal Case of People v. in his comment. Judge Leo M.00 as bailbond for each accused. The importance of a hearing has been emphasized in not a few cases wherein the court ruled that.” issued an order granting bail to the accused in the sum of P200.000.00.000. or the lack of it against the accused.000.000. Respondent observed that since it submitted to the court. the public prosecutor assigned in the cases by stating that the prosecutor recommended the grant of bail. It may rightly be exercised only after the Respondent judge insists that in the aforecited cases.00 for accused Ahmed Duerme inasmuch as “the evidence was not so strong to warrant the fixation of said amount.[22] Respondent judge. When the case was elevated to the No. “acting on said recommendation and again guided by the provision of Section 9. counsel for accused Ahmed Duerme filed a motion for reduction of bail. Ana. Once again. Rodrigo Bumanglag. accused through counsel filed a motion to reduce bail.[29] murder in a criminal complaint filed before the Municipal supervision of the fiscal or prosecutor. Cagayan.[21] filed a petition for bail. even if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence or fails to interpose an objection to the motion for bail. People v.[37] Moreover. not to say. complainant has yet to present evidence as to any irregularity committed by respondent judge in acquitting Mr. as well as the fact that prosecutor out of humanitarian reason yielded and counsel for the accused vouched and guaranteed the manifested that he is amenable that the accused be appearance of the accused in court whenever admitted to bail in the amount of P200. the defense counsel. contrary to Criminal Case No. 07-874 and 08-866 without having conducted the requisite hearing. did not contain a summary of the respondent judge in reducing the amount of bail in evidence presented by the prosecution. In Criminal Criminal Case No. as bailbond of the accused is too low. some legal skirmishes arose between the corpus of the crime as no firearm was taken from the Prosecutor and the Defense Counsel. whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion. that is. there is no dearth of jurisprudence on the basic principles involving bail.[38] denying bail may be invalidated because the summary of the evidence for the prosecution which contains the In Criminal Case No. Catral guilty of gross ignorance of the law for having granted bail to the accused in Criminal Cases No. In sum. Be that as it may. 07-874. to secure the appearance of the accused to answer charges brought against him. Respondent added that the amount of bail was appropriate inasmuch as it was fixed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Section 9 of Administrative Circular 12-94. As long as in fixing the amount of bail.000. respondent already fixed bail in the sum of P200. alarming. we adopt the findings of the Office Worth noting. 08-915 for homicide filed judge’s evaluation of the evidence may be considered against accused Nilo de Rivera. 08-866. Siriban. both moved to have it reset. 07-874. Ahmed Duerme. the possession of the accused.800. It is indeed surprising. As a matter of fact. that the Court should be besieged with a number of administrative cases filed against erring judges involving bail. too. as well as the for the prosecution. records show that. the trial of the case of cases[34] is the rule that the court’s order granting or had already been set for hearing but on more than refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence one occasion. is the fact that the order granting the of the Court Administrator that the complainant failed application. In all cases. notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his . in granting and warrant the fixation of said amount”[32] and the subsequently reducing the recommended bailbond of observation that: “When the hearing of this petition was P180.[31] The procedural lapse of respondent judge is aggravated by the fact that even though the accused in Criminal Case No.00” in required.00 granted by respondent prosecution and the defense.[35] At subsequently dismissed by Judge Alameda does not this juncture. otherwise the order granting or prosecutor. Other than his bare allegation. there is a need to reiterate the basic completely exculpate respondent judge.[33] Well settled in a number the allegations of the complainant. we find respondent Judge Segundo B.000. complainant alleges as an aspect of procedural due process for both the that the amount of P14.the witnesses. 11250 for Illegal Possession of Case No. the Court itself. Respondent judge stresses that the amount was recommended by the prosecutor and not motu propio by the trial court. has been including lectures on the subject in the regular seminars conducted for judges. as well as the reduction for bail the to show that bad faith motivated the actuation of aforecited cases. to file a petition for bail for statements which could hardly be the basis for some whose freedom has yet to be curtailed.[30] As a matter of fact. determining whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. we adopt the findings of the office of the Court Administrator that there is nothing in the record to substantiate the allegation of the complainant that the acquittal of a certain Jimmy Siriban by respondent judge was tainted with irregularity. the court is guided by the purpose for which bail is required. we reiterate the following duties of the trial judge in case an application for bail is filed: “1. respondent only arrived at the Firearm against Barangay Captain Rodolfo conclusion that "the evidence was not so strong to Castaneda. have yet to be arrested. statements of the witnesses are mere hearsay not to say incongruous. We need only principle that the right to bail can only be availed of by remind him that he is not bound by the recommendation a person who is in custody of the law or otherwise of the prosecutor and the affidavits and sworn deprived of his liberty[36] and it would be premature. the decision of the court to grant bail in the sum it deems appropriate will not be interfered with. Respondent evidently knew that the accused were still at large as he even had to direct their arrest in the same order The fact that Criminal Case No. the case had already been dismissed for failure to prosecute by Judge Alameda inasmuch as the prosecutor himself admitted that there was lack of interest on the part of the witnesses to pursue the case and not a single witness ever went to court to see him. After all. 07-874 was where he simultaneously granted them bail. after which. With regard to the third charge filed against respondent judge.000. With respect to the last charge. through its Philippine Judicial Academy.00.00 considered the fact that there was no called. Respondent judge. Regalado. 14. pp. 1. [6] Rollo. Davide. 1987 Constitution.. p. Boyle. Edgardo Fernando y Caddarao @ ‘Gardo’. 83. [11] Rollo. 1994. Ahmed Duerme. concur. Narvasa. Dudley v. Where bail is a matter of discretion. supra) discharge their duties assiduously. Mendoza.. . p. C. no part.. (Section 7 and 8. Section 13. Jr. [7] Rollo. 80. 17-18. respondent Judge Segundo B.. discharge the he be conversant with basic legal principles.recommendation (Section 18. 1994. [3] Criminal Case No. Kapunan.. on leave during deliberations. [12] Rollo. US. 96 L ED 3. 242 F 2d 656. with statutes and procedural rules. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution. [14] Article III. 72 S Ct. Admittedly. 18. 2.113. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as amended). If the guilt of the accused is not strong. p. [8] Rollo. Cenon Duerme y Orel. 07-874 is actually “People of the Philippines v. p.J. 91-92. and Torres. 16. 15. this Court justifiably expects judges to discretion.00 with the WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. pp. SO ORDERED. WHEREFORE. p. Hermosisima. A show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the number of cases on bail having already been purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound decided. it is imperative that 4. in view of the foregoing. Panganiban. p. Catral is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine P20.. the amendments of which took effect on October 1. Ahmed Duerme y Paypon. Roberto Duerme @ ‘Berto’/’Berting’ and Florante Duerme y Saguitan @ ‘Berong’” but for purposes of this case. Francisco. Vitug. trial judges are enjoined to study them as well and be guided accordingly. Criminal Case No. conduct a judges cannot be held to account for an erroneous hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether decision rendered in good faith. Jr.”[39] cannot justly be charge with a deficiency in their [1] Rollo. 5. 07-874 shall be referred to as “People v. Bellosillo.000. [13] Stack v. [10] Rollo. 342 US 1. For judge is called 3.” [4] Rule 114 of the Rules of Court on Bail was amended by the Supreme Court in its Resolution dated August 16. [2] Rollo. p. JJ. With such succinct but clear rules now incorporated in the Rules of Court. Faith in accused upon the approval of the bailbond (Section 19. p. Jr. grasp of legal principles. Melo. [9] Rollo. but this defense is or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to much too frequently cited even if not applicable. [5] Rollo. J. the administration of justice can only be engendered if litigants are convinced that the members of the Bench supra) Otherwise petition should be denied. Puno. entitled. Jr. 1986 the management of the latter into the hands of RICARDO L. Rollo.R. Manotoc. CAMILON and RICARDO L. Court of Appeals. 142 SCRA 149 Management. [19] Annex 1. 001826. Prosecutor Antonio Chin v. PRONOVE. Rollo. and the Chief of the Aviation Security and Exchange Commission for the appointment Command (AVSECOM). et al. Rollo. 13. a stock brokerage house. petitioner. said business. pp. SERAFIN E. When a Torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities. HONS. pp. JR. corresponding criminal charges for estafa .[15] Section 9. p. of a management committee. States. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. A. Inc. was suspected to be a fake. In due course. et al. 001826. Judge Tito G. 66-68. Inc.. jurisdiction. [17] Annex F. Having transferred G. but likewise for TransFERNAN. Ricardo Manotoc. MANOTOC. REYES.. Inc. 55. [18] Rollo. [24] Annex P.. Teodoro Kalaw.. filed a petition with the Securities Immigration. p. as Following the "run" on stock brokerages caused Judges of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. p. 55. p.. 42 SCRA 184 (1971). Gustilo. p. Petitioners". Presiding Judge. p. [20] Rollo. 15. JR. not to clear petitioner for departure and a memorandum to this effect was issued by the Commissioner on February 4. 115-122. criminal indictment and provisionally released on bail have an unrestricted right to travel? D. Jr. [25] Rollo. J. professional men.M. 94-1243. EDMUNDO M. 65. The petition relative to The issue posed for resolution in this petition for the Manotoc Securities. Inc. respectively. [22] Annex A. p. corporation. Inc. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. six of its clients filed six separate criminal complaints against petitioner and one Raul Leveriza. docketed as SEC review may be stated thus: Does a person facing a Case No. 50. Pending disposition of SEC Case No. [23] Annex O. came home. Jr. is one of the two principal stockholders of Trans-Insular Manotok v. No.. No. [21] Annex 1. as president and vice-president. the Securities and Exchange Commission requested the then Commissioner of Immigration. Jr.. as Commissioner of stockholders. L-62100 May 30... [16] Siazon v. not only for Manotoc Securities. Rollo. but acts as president of the former THE COURT OF APPEALS. petitioner. August 11. was granted and a management committee was organized and appointed. Inc.A-7. he holds no officer-position in vs. Right to Bail and Right to Travel Petitioner Ricardo L. 1995. Inc... and the Manotoc Securities. Rollo. 14. and together with his coHON.: Insular Management. of Manotoc Securities. respondents. who was then in the United the SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMISSION. Inc. Rollo. 1980 to the Chief of the Immigration Regulation Division. "In the Matter of the Appointment of a Management Committee for Manotoc Securities. Pasig by stock broker Santamaria's flight from this branches. Edmundo Reyes. See also Asst.. 1982. raffled off to Judge Pronove. petitioner stated that his presence in Louisiana. 1982.. 1982.. desires to leave for the United States on the all embracing ground that his trip is ." stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States. Miller 9 requesting his presence in the United States to "meet the people and companies who would be involved in its investments. Inc. Criminal Cases Nos. when notified of the dismissal of the other cases against petitioner. Pending resolution of the petition to which we gave due course on April 14. 7 In his motion.S. should the accused fail or decide not to return. The Court sees no urgency from this statement. petitioner has been admitted to bail in the total amount of P105. of Judges Camilon and Pronove. likewise manifested that on August 1. WHEREFORE.00. but said request was also denied in a letter dated May 27. 1984. U. Inc. No matter of any magnitude is discerned to warrant judicial imprimatur on the proposed trip. The order of Judge Camilon dated March 9. In all cases. Jr. 1984. On March 1. In view thereof. 1983 6 petitioner filed on August 15. is needed in connection "with the obtention of foreign investment in Manotoc Securities. "motion for permission to leave the country. denying his leave to travel abroad. 1984 a motion for leave to go abroad pendente lite. and Criminal Cases Nos. (he) was not in any way connected with the Manotoc Securities. permission to leave the country is denied Ricardo Manotoc. the Court in a resolution en banc denied petitioner's motion for leave to go abroad pendente lite. as well as the communicationrequest of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 45542 to 45545. 45542-45545) had been dismissed as to him "on motion of the prosecution on the ground that after verification of the records of the Securities and Exchange Commission . remained pending as Judge Camilon.. Mr. Inc. Marsden W. 1984 of the chief executive officer of the Exploration Company of Louisiana.A. 45399 and 45400 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati." 8 He attached the letter dated August 9. Dissatisfied with the appellate court's ruling. He likewise prayed for the issuance of the appropriate writ commanding the Immigration Commissioner and the Chief of the Aviation Security Command (AVSECOM) to clear him for departure.. 1982." 1 The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing. 1980. reads in part: 6. "relative to his business transactions and opportunities.'' 11 of Manotoc Securities. assigned to respondent Judge Camilon. there is also merit in the prosecution's contention that if the Court would allow the accused to leave the Philippines the surety companies that filed the bail bonds in his behalf might claim that they could no longer be held liable in their undertakings because it was the Court which allowed the accused to go outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippine Court. 1982. 4933 to 4936 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati (formerly Nos.. 2 On the other hand. On October 5. Inc. 45399 and 45400. the motion of the accused is DENIED. On September 20. ordered merely the informations amended so as to delete the allegation that petitioner was president and to substitute that he was "controlling/majority stockholder. docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. instead of dismissing the cases before him. respectively. with FGU Instance Corporation as surety. now or in the future until these two (2) cases are terminated . the order of Judge Pronove dated March 26. relative to his business transactions and opportunities. Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the then Court of Appeals 4 seeking to annul the orders dated March 9 and 26." 10 Criminal Cases Nos. reads: Accused Ricardo Manotoc Jr. petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari." Petitioner. 3 It appears that petitioner likewise wrote the Immigration Commissioner a letter requesting the recall or withdrawal of the latter's memorandum dated February 4.000. 12 Petitioner contends that having been admitted to . as of the date of the commission of the offenses imputed to him. petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled. the appellate court rendered a decision 5 dismissing the petition for lack of merit.-Finally. both trial judges denied the same.were filed by the investigating fiscal before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal. however. 1982. for while there is. and at the same time. If granted at all. Petitioner's contention is untenable. if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason. and the prisoner released thereunder. was to prohibit said accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The law does not limit such undertaking of the bondsmen as demandable only when the appellants are in the territorial confines of the Philippines and not demandable if the appellants are out of the country. liberty operates as fully within as without the boundaries of the granting state.. Indeed. otherwise. is indivisible.-G. it is not for the reason suggested by the appellate court. the result of the obligation assumed by appellee (surety) to hold the accused amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the lower court. Also. petitioner's case is not on all fours with the Shepherd case. February 13. This principle perhaps accounts for the absence of any law or jurisprudence expressly declaring that liberty under bail does not transcend the territorial boundaries of the country.. The sureties become invested with full authority over the person of the principal and have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state. the duration thereof and the conforme of her sureties to the proposed travel . . In the latter case.A. Shepherd (C. if it were otherwise. the most important consequence of bail. Such custody has been regarded merely as a continuation of the original imprisonment. The effect of a recognizance or bail bond. said orders and processes will be nugatory. that he will appear before any court in which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance. notwithstanding his allegation that he is at total liberty to leave the country.. petitioner places reliance upon the then Court of Appeals' ruling in People vs. No. The rather broad and generalized statement suffers from a serious fallacy. the accused was able to show the urgent necessity for her travel abroad. 404 (1935). is to transfer the custody of the accused from the public officials who have him in their charge to keepers of his own selection. 1980) particularly citing the following passage: . The law obliges the bondsmen to produce the person of the appellants at the pleasure of the Court. neither law nor jurisprudence expressly declaring that liberty under bail does not transcend the territorial boundaries of the country. Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law. albeit provisional.bail as a matter of right. when fully executed or filed of record. . 61 Phil. to put the accused as much under the power of the court as if he were in custody of the proper officer. To support his contention. A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. and inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the courts from which they issued does not extend beyond that of the Philippines they would have no binding force outside of said jurisdiction. pending the trial. for he would not have filed the motion for permission to leave the country in the first place. The faith reposed by petitioner on the abovequoted opinion of the appellate court is misplaced. this inherent right of the court is recognized by petitioner himself. In fact. could prevent him from exercising his constitutional right to travel. Rule 114. more so then has the court from which the sureties merely derive such right. 23505-R. 13 The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. because. and whose jurisdiction over the person of the principal remains unaffected despite the grant of bail to the latter. 14 If the sureties have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state.R... As we have held in People vs. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond.. Its object is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and the state of the burden of keeping him. he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. and to secure the appearance of the accused so as to answer the call of the court and do what the law may require of him. Uy Tuising. neither the courts which granted him bail nor the Securities and Exchange Commission which has no jurisdiction over his liberty. Liberty. indeed. Petitioner's motion bears no indication that the alleged business transactions could not be undertaken by any other person in his behalf.. Petitioner merely alleges that his surety has agreed to his plans as he had posted cash indemnities. SO ORDERED. 44. Jr.thereby satisfying the court that she would comply with the conditions of her bail bond. Rollo. Petition. Gutierrez. Under this rule. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution states: The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Teehankee. Rollo. 121. Alampay. Footnotes 1 Annex "D". Rollo. 2 Ibid. Bailment. p. Rollo. Cruz and Paras.. We find no abuse of judicial discretion in their having denied petitioner's motion for permission to leave the country. To our mind. Ed. 17. p. We see the rationale behind said order. nor is there any showing that petitioner's non-presence in the United States would cause him irreparable damage or prejudice. Petition. 6 p. the petition for review is hereby dismissed. 44. 87.. the government impliedly agrees "that it will not take any proceedings with the principal that will increase the risks of the sureties or affect their remedies against him. C. or to permit the principal to leave the state or country. took no part. Neither is there any hint that petitioner's absence from the United States would absolutely preclude him from taking advantage of business opportunities therein. Feria. the order of the trial court releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the above-quoted constitutional provision. Rollo. The court cannot allow the accused to leave the country without the assent of the surety because in accepting a bail bond or recognizance. 15 Petitioner has not specified the duration of the proposed travel or shown that his surety has agreed to it. 11 p. 129. 10 p. or when necessary in the interest of national security. J." 16 Thus. petitioner in this case has not satisfactorily shown any of the above. 7 p. 117. The constitutional right to travel being invoked by petitioner is not an absolute right. 124. 42. [Rev. Jur. Rollo. 1982 issued by Judge Pronove has been rendered moot and academic by the dismissal as to petitioner of the criminal cases pending before said judge. Rollo. 44. the surety on a bail bond or recognizance may be discharged by a stipulation inconsistent with the conditions thereof. concur. albeit with contrary results. with costs against petitioner. Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that there is absolute necessity for him to travel abroad. Motion for Leave p. in contrast. that We found no reversible error to have been committed by the appellate court in allowing Shepherd to leave the country after it had satisfied itself that she would comply with the conditions of her bail bond. as well as the consent of his surety to the proposed travel. 9 Annex "BB". allegedly attend to some business transactions and search for business opportunities.J. Melencio-Herrera. WHEREFORE. the duration thereof. From the tenor and import of petitioner's motion.. 120. Rollo. no urgent or compelling reason can be discerned to justify the grant of judicial imprimatur thereto. Rollo. As aptly observed by the Solicitor General in his comment: A perusal of petitioner's 'Motion for Permission to Leave the Country' will show that it is solely predicated on petitioner's wish to travel to the United States where he will. although the order of March 26. p. This result has been reached as to a stipulation or agreement to postpone the trial until after the final disposition of other cases. As petitioner has failed to satisfy the trial courts and the appellate court of the urgency of his travel. Rollo 5 Annex "D". Section 5. Rollo. 117. 12 p.]. Yap. Rollo. 8 p. 4 Annex "A Petition. Abad Santos. which is made without his assent. public safety or public health. p. p. JJ. S6 . 13 6 Am. 3 Ibid. Narvasa. in much the same way. Finding the decision of the appellate court to be in accordance with law and jurisprudence. the Court finds that no gainful purpose will be served in discussing the other issues raised by petitioner. pp. Jur. 2002 (see pages 10 . 69-70. Effect on right when Detention is Questioned Rule 114. Purganan. Rules of Court F. Rollo. September 24.]. 148571. Bailments. Hon. $100. [Rev. 16 6 Am. GR No. Ed. Jur.14 6 Am.23) . 125 E. Right to Bail and Extradition Proceedings Government of the United States of America vs. 15 Comment.